Winfield v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Carl Alton Winfield, Petitioner and Appellant, v. State of Utah, Respondent and Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20090596-CA F I L E D (November 5, 2009) 2009 UT App 323 ----Third District, West Jordan Department, 060405679 The Honorable Terry L. Christiansen Attorneys: Carl Alton Winfield, Draper, Appellant Pro Se Mark L. Shurtleff and Brett J. Delporto, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Orme, Thorne, and McHugh. PER CURIAM: Carl Alton Winfield appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the State and denying his petition for postconviction relief. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. Where a court has appellate jurisdiction, "an appellant must allege the lower court committed an error that the appellate court should correct. . . . If an appellant fails to allege specific errors of the lower court, the appellate court will not seek out errors in the lower court's decision." Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56, ¶ 7, 194 P.3d 903. Because Winfield is seeking this court's review of a district court's decision, he must address reasons why the district court's decision denying his petition should be overturned. See id. ¶ 14. However, Winfield fails to address the trial court's ruling. Instead, Winfield merely reasserts issues listed in his petition and argued to the trial court. In doing so, he ignores the legal basis for the trial court's ruling. Absent an actual allegation of trial court error in its decision denying Winfield's petition, there is no substantial question for review warranting further consideration by this court. Affirmed. ______________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge 20090596-CA 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.