Opinion
Case No. 20020459-CA.
Filed August 8, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Third District, Murray Department, The Honorable Bruce C. Lubeck.
Benjamin A. Hamilton, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
G.L. Critchfield, Murray, for Appellee.
Before Judges Davis, Greenwood, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
This case originated in Murray Justice Court, where Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a class B misdemeanor, and improper turn, a class C misdemeanor. Defendant appealed, and was granted a trial de novo in district court pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120 (Supp. 2001). In the district court, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the argument that rule 4-608(2)(c) of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration is unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion, and Defendant entered conditional guilty pleas on amended charges. See State v. Sery, 738 P.2d 935 (Utah Ct.App. 1988). Defendant seeks to appeal the district court's ruling on his motion to dismiss.
This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See Utah R. App. P. 10(a)(1). The statute granting this court jurisdiction after an appeal in the form of a trial de novo is clear and specific: "The decision of the district 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) (emphasis added); see also City of Monticello v. Christensen, 788 P.2d 513, 517 (Utah 1990); State v. Hinson, 966 P.2d 273, 276 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) ("'[C]onventional' appellate jurisdiction is limited to only those issues attacking the validity or constitutionality of an ordinance or statute.").
Defendant concedes that section 78-5-120 clearly limits this court's jurisdiction over an appeal after a trial de novo. Defendant asserts, however, that because he raised claims of constitutional violations in the district court, he has met the statutory requirements giving this court jurisdiction. In City of Monticello v. Christensen, 769 P.2d 853 (Utah Ct.App. 1989), this court stated that "[f]or the purpose of satisfying jurisdictional prerequisites it is not enough to aver a general deprivation of constitutional rights. . . . Section [78-5-120] requires that a specific statute or ordinance be challenged." Id. at 854 (emphasis added). Because Defendant challenges the constitutionality of a rule, rather than a statute or ordinance as specified under the statute, this court is without jurisdiction over the appeal.
Accordingly, we grant the sua sponte motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge.