Opinion
Case No. 20070310-CA.
Filed June 28, 2007.
Appeal from the Fourth District, Fillmore Department, 065700005 The Honorable Samuel D. McVey.
William M. York, Delta, Appellant Pro Se.
Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and McHugh.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
William M. York appeals his convictions for speeding and failure to wear a seat belt. The case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.
Utah Code section 78-5-120(7) states that "the decision of the district court [in a case originating in justice court] is final and may not be appealed unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance." Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120(7) (2002). Accordingly, "absent an issue regarding the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, the decision of the district court is final and this court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal thereof." State v. Hinson, 966 P.2d 273, 277 (Utah Ct.App. 1998). York was originally found guilty in justice court of speeding and failure to wear a seat belt. York then filed a request for a trial de novo with the district court. The district court conducted a trial de novo, and York was again found guilty of speeding and failure to wear a seatbelt.
York raises numerous issues on appeal, including whether the statute under which he was charged actually exists. To the extent this above issue could be seen as an attack on the constitutionality of the speeding statute, it was not properly raised in the district court, as such, the district court never ruled on its constitutionality. None of the other issues presented concern the constitutionality of the statute under which York was charged, nor did the district court rule on any such issue. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See id. When a court 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, we dismiss the appeal.
James Z. Davis, Judge.
Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge.