Opinion
Case No. 20060842-CA.
Filed January 5, 2007. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, 040905805 The Honorable Tyrone E. Medley.
William Sherratt, Draper, Appellant Pro Se.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Brent A. Burnett, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Bench, Greenwood, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
William Sherratt appeals the district court's denial of his "60(b)(4) motion to vacate judgment for void jurisdiction." This matter is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based upon the lack of a substantial question for appellate review.
Sherratt brought a petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to rule 65B(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The only claims raised in that petition concerned certain conditions of his confinement. The petition was eventually dismissed and Sherratt appealed the decision to this court. This court affirmed the district court decision. See Sherratt v. Friel, 2006 UT App 135. During the pendency of that appeal, Sherratt filed a motion in the district court under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure alleging that the district court that convicted him never obtained jurisdiction over him. Accordingly, he argued that he should be immediately released from prison. The district court denied the motion, and Sherratt now appeals.
Petitions filed under rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure are limited in scope to those "proceedings involving wrongful restraint on personal liberty other than those governed by [r]ule 65C."Manning v. State, 2004 UT App 87, ¶ 18, 89 P.3d 196, aff'd on other grounds, 2005 UT 61 (quotations and citation omitted). Thus, "rule 65B is not applicable in a challenge focused on a criminal conviction, even if a restriction on liberty results from the conviction." Id. Sherratt properly filed a rule 65B petition concerning various conditions of his confinement. However, his rule 60(b) motion to vacate judgment for lack of jurisdiction did not relate to the allegations in the petition. Instead, it focused on whether the court, which tried and sentenced him, lacked jurisdiction to do so. Because the motion was meant to attack the underlying conviction instead of the district court's authority to rule on Sherratt's 65B petition, the motion was improperly brought in this case. See id. Therefore, because Sherratt's rule 65B petition for extraordinary relief was not a proper vehicle to challenge his underlying conviction, the district court properly denied Sherratt's 60(b) motion.
Affirmed.