State v. Upton
This text of 2011 UT App 348 (State v. Upton) 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.
Opinion
DECISION
¶1 George Washington Upton seeks to appeal the district court's May 27, 2011 "Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Uphold and Enforce Sentence and Rule 11 Plea Agreement." 1 This matter is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based upon lack of jurisdiction due to Upton's failure to file a timely notice of appeal. See Utah R.App. P. 4(a).
¶2 A notice of appeal must be filed "with the clerk of the trial court within 80 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 it. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616.
¶3 The district court entered its ruling resolving Upton's motion to enforce his sentence and rule 11 plea agreement on May 27, 2011. Therefore, if Upton wished to appeal the order, he was required to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of that date. However, Upton did not file his pro se notice of appeal until July 11, 2011.2 Thus, the notice of appeal was untimely. Because Upton 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2011 UT App 348, 263 P.3d 1226, 693 Utah Adv. Rep. 58, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 349, 2011 WL 4865166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-upton-utahctapp-2011.