Crowe v. State

Utah Supreme Court

Crowe v. State

649 P.2d 2, 1982 Utah LEXIS 979

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedMay 25, 1982

DocketNo. 18227

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 649 P.2d 2 (Crowe v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crowe v. State, 649 P.2d 2, 1982 Utah LEXIS 979 (Utah 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff here was convicted by a jury of an attempted sale of narcotics. The trial judge advised plaintiff of his right to appeal after the jury returned its verdict, but did not do so at the time of sentencing.

In a post-conviction proceeding under Rule 65B(i), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, newly retained counsel urged that plaintiff had not properly been advised of his right to appeal within 30 days.¹ Plaintiff asked that the court resentence him, which request was denied.

Plaintiff now appeals as to one issue only: the right to be informed by the court after sentencing of the right to appeal.²

Although clearly there is a constitutional right of appeal, there is no federal or state constitutional provision prescribing rules of procedure to perfect such guaranteed right. The trial court in this case clearly told the plaintiff at the trial and after the verdict, that he had a right of appeal. He and his counsel were present and no objection was made to the timeliness of the court’s advice. The fact that the court did not advise plaintiff again of his right to appeal at sentencing time was harmless error.³

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff here was convicted by a jury of an attempted sale of narcotics. The trial judge advised plaintiff of his right to appeal after the jury returned its verdict, but did not do so at the time of sentencing.

In a post-conviction proceeding under Rule 65B(i), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, newly retained counsel urged that plaintiff had not properly been advised of his right to appeal within 30 days.¹ Plaintiff asked that the court resentence him, which request was denied.

Plaintiff now appeals as to one issue only: the right to be informed by the court after sentencing of the right to appeal.²

Although clearly there is a constitutional right of appeal, there is no federal or state constitutional provision prescribing rules of procedure to perfect such guaranteed right. The trial court in this case clearly told the plaintiff at the trial and after the verdict, that he had a right of appeal. He and his counsel were present and no objection was made to the timeliness of the court’s advice. The fact that the court did not advise plaintiff again of his right to appeal at sentencing time was harmless error.³

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

649 P.2d 2, 1982 Utah LEXIS 979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowe-v-state-utah-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack