Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

Orem City, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Eduard Solur, Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM:

Eduard Solur appeals his conviction for violation of Utah Code section 76-5-102, a class B misdemeanor. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-102 (2003). This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition.

Solur entered a plea of no contest to violation of Utah Code section 76-5-102 on March 28, 2005. This plea was never withdrawn. Based upon this plea, the district court entered a suspended jail sentence and entered a fine and probation against Solur on April 4, 2005. This appeal followed.

Utah Code section 77-13-6 provides: "A plea of guilty or no contest may be withdrawn only upon leave of the court and a showing that it was not knowingly and voluntarily made." Utah Code Ann. § 77-13-6(2)(a) (Supp. 2004). A request to withdraw a plea "shall be made by motion before sentence is announced."Id. § 77-13-6(2)(b). If a defendant fails to make a timely request to withdraw a plea, any challenge to the plea must be made pursuant to the Post-Conviction Remedies Act and rule 65C of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. § 77-13-6(2)(c).

The timely filing of a notice to withdraw a plea is jurisdictional. See State v. Reyes, 2002 UT 13, ¶¶ 3-4, 40 P.3d 630. Failure to file a timely motion to withdraw a guilty plea "extinguishes a defendant's right to challenge the validity of the guilty plea on appeal." Id. at ¶ 3.

Because Solur entered a plea of no contest and failed to file a timely motion to withdraw his plea, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Solur's appeal. See id. at ¶¶ 3-4. Once a court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction, it "retains only the authority to dismiss the action." Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct.App. 1989).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

WE CONCUR: Judith M. Billings, Presiding Judge, Norman H. Jackson, Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

OREM CITY v. SOLUR
(Jun 3, 2005)