State v. Merriman

Court of Appeals of Utah

State v. Merriman

2011 UT App 216, 257 P.3d 510, 685 Utah Adv. Rep. 67, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 212, 2011 WL 2582678

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedJune 30, 2011

Docket20110342-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2011 UT App 216 (State v. Merriman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Merriman, 2011 UT App 216, 257 P.3d 510, 685 Utah Adv. Rep. 67, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 212, 2011 WL 2582678 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

{1 Daniel John Merriman seeks to appeal his convictions for securities fraud. This matter is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based upon lack of jurisdiction due to Merriman's failure to file a timely notice of appeal. See Utah R.App. P. 4(a).

T2 A notice of appeal must be filed "with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Id. If an appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and must dismiss. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616.

T3 Merriman entered pleas of guilty to three counts of securities fraud on January 6, 2010. The court entered Merriman's sentence on February 17, 2010. Therefore, if Merriman wished to appeal his sentence, he was required to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of that date. However, Merriman did not file his pro se notice of appeal until April 12, 2011. Thus, the notice of appeal was untimely. Because Merriman did not timely file his notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and has no choice but to dismiss it. See Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct.App.1989).

" 4 The appeal is dismissed. 1

1

. Merriman asserts that he was deprived of his right to appeal the case due to the ineffectiveness of his counsel. If Merriman seeks a direct appeal of his conviction, he must do so pursuant to the requirements of Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61, ¶ 31, 122 P.3d 628. See id. ("[Ujpon a defendant's motion, the trial or sentencing court may reinstate the time frame for filing a direct appeal where the defendant can prove ... that he has been unconstitutionally deprived, through no fault of his own, of his right to appeal."); see also Utah R.App. P. 4(f).

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

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

{1 Daniel John Merriman seeks to appeal his convictions for securities fraud. This matter is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based upon lack of jurisdiction due to Merriman's failure to file a timely notice of appeal. See Utah R.App. P. 4(a).

T2 A notice of appeal must be filed "with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Id. If an appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and must dismiss. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616.

T3 Merriman entered pleas of guilty to three counts of securities fraud on January 6, 2010. The court entered Merriman's sentence on February 17, 2010. Therefore, if Merriman wished to appeal his sentence, he was required to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of that date. However, Merriman did not file his pro se notice of appeal until April 12, 2011. Thus, the notice of appeal was untimely. Because Merriman did not timely file his notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and has no choice but to dismiss it. See Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct.App.1989).

" 4 The appeal is dismissed. 1

1

. Merriman asserts that he was deprived of his right to appeal the case due to the ineffectiveness of his counsel. If Merriman seeks a direct appeal of his conviction, he must do so pursuant to the requirements of Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61, ¶ 31, 122 P.3d 628. See id. ("[Ujpon a defendant's motion, the trial or sentencing court may reinstate the time frame for filing a direct appeal where the defendant can prove ... that he has been unconstitutionally deprived, through no fault of his own, of his right to appeal."); see also Utah R.App. P. 4(f).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 UT App 216, 257 P.3d 510, 685 Utah Adv. Rep. 67, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 212, 2011 WL 2582678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-merriman-utahctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack