Opinion
Case No. 20100190-CA.
Filed May 13, 2010. Not For Official Publication
Appeal from the Fourth District, Spanish Fork Department, 095300365 The Honorable Howard H. Maetani.
Jeffrey Bernell Larsen, Apache Junction, Arizona, Appellant Pro Se.
S. Junior Baker and Jason K. Sant, Spanish Fork, for Appellee.
Before Judges Orme, Thorne, and Roth.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jeffrey Bernell Larsen appeals the district court's conviction and sentence entered on March 5, 2009. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to rule 4(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the entry of the final order or judgment appealed. See Utah R. App. P. 4(a). In an appeal taken from a criminal conviction and sentence, "it is the sentence itself which constitutes a final judgment from which the appellant has the right to appeal."State v. Gerrard, 584 P.2d 885, 886 (Utah 1979). The time for appeal may be extended by certain motions identified in rule 4(b) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Utah R. App. P. 4(b). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616. If this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal, we have only the authority to dismiss the appeal. See Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).
The record indicates that Larsen was sentenced on March 5, 2009. Thus, his notice of appeal seeking to challenge his conviction and sentence was required to have been filed on or before April 6, 2009.See Utah R. App. P. 4(a); see also Gerrard, 584 P.2d at 886. Larsen did not file his notice of appeal until nearly one year later. Larsen's time for appeal was not extended by the filing of a postjudgment motion recognized by rule 4(b) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Thus, because Larsen's notice of appeal was not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction and we are required to dismiss the appeal. See Varian-Eimac, Inc., 767 P.2d at 570.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.