Opinion
Case No. 20040947-CA.
Filed December 16, 2004. (Not For Official Publication).
Original Proceeding in this Court.
Aaron L. Helbach, Gunnison, Petitioner Pro Se.
Brent M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for Respondent Judge Dutson.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Christopher D. Ballard, Salt Lake City, for Respondent State of Utah.
Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Greenwood.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Aaron Helbach filed a petition in the appellate courts seeking extraordinary relief under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 19 and seeking habeas corpus relief under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.
Helbach's petition challenges the validity of his guilty plea to charges of aggravated robbery. Helbach pleaded guilty in August 2003 and was sentenced in September 2003. He did not file a timely motion to withdraw his plea. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-13-6(2)(b) (2003) (providing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea must be made before sentence is announced). As a result, his sole avenue to challenge his plea is under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (Act), see Utah Code sections 78-35a-101 to -110, and rule 65C of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-13-6(2)(c).
Under rule 19 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, a petition for extraordinary relief in an appellate court is available only where "no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy exists." Utah R. App. P. 19(b)(4); see also Utah R. Civ. P. 65B. Helbach has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to challenge his plea under the procedures of the Act and rule 65C. Thus, to the extent Helbach's petition is a petition for extraordinary relief under rule 19, it is denied.
Rule 20 provides that where a petition for habeas corpus relief is filed in an appellate court, the petition "will be referred to the appropriate district court." Utah R. App. P. 20(a). The referral is required "unless it is shown on the face of the petition to the satisfaction of the appellate court that the district court is unavailable or other exigent circumstances exist." Id. Helbach's petition does not address this requirement at all. He alleges no facts that would show the unavailability of the district court or other exigent circumstances warranting the retention of the petition in an appellate court. As a result, insofar as the petition is a petition for habeas corpus or post-conviction relief, the petition is not appropriately before this court.
Accordingly, the petition for extraordinary relief is denied. Further, the petition is referred to the second district court for consideration regarding the claims for post-conviction relief.
Judith M. Billings, Presiding Judge, Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge and Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge, concur.