ROY CITY v. METZLER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Karen Metzler initiated this appeal purportedly taken from a February 20, 2003 bench trial, a March 31, 2003 ruling, and an April 22, 2003 notice to pay a fine. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary dismissal because the appeal was not taken from a final appealable judgment.

Metzler's docketing statement clarifies that she seeks to appeal the interlocutory ruling dated March 31, 2003. She did not file a timely petition for permission to appeal from the interlocutory ruling pursuant to rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Notices from the district court advised Metzler that a final judgment was a prerequisite to an appeal. Furthermore, this court's sua sponte motion dated May 27, 2003, advised her that the appeal was being considered for dismissal because it was not taken from a final appealable judgment. Her response argues the merits of the appeal and does not address the jurisdictional issue.

On May 28, 2003, the district court entered a final appealable judgment and sentence. Metzler did not file a timely notice of appeal from the final judgment, and the time for appeal has since expired. The March 31, 2003 ruling announced the alternatives for disposition of the case, but required further information to be submitted to the court. As such, it was neither a final appealable judgment nor an announcement of the final judgment. Accordingly, rule 4(c) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure does not apply to make the notice of appeal timely.

In sum, the notice of appeal was not taken from a final appealable judgment, and Metzler did not seek or obtain permission to appeal from that order under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although the court later entered a final appealable judgment and sentence, Metzler did not file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge, Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge, and Gregory K. Orme, Judge, concur.