Opinion
Case No. 20050878-CA.
Filed June 21, 2007. NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
Appeal from the Sixth District, Kanab Department, 961600069 The Honorable K.L. McIff.
Margaret P. Lindsay, Orem, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Karen A. Klucznik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Bench, Orme, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Defendant James Johnston appeals the denial of certain postjudgment motions. We affirm.
Defendant previously appealed his convictions for one count of sodomy on a child, four counts of sexual abuse of a child, and one count of lewdness involving a child. See State v. Johnston, 2002 UT App 407 (mem.). This court addressed Defendant's substantive arguments and held that there was no ineffective assistance, and no trial court error save the trial court's sentence on the sodomy on a child conviction. See id. This court remanded the case to the trial court "for the limited purpose of imposing sentence for the sodomy on a child conviction in accordance with Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-201." Id. (citing Utah R. Crim P. 22(e)).
This court previously noted that Utah Code section 76-3-201, the statute in effect at the time of sentencing, required the sentencing court to "order imposition of the term of middle severity unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime." Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-201(6)(a) (Supp. 1997). The trial court's original sentence did not comply with this requirement. See State v. Johnston, 2002 UT App 407, n. 1 (mem.).
Despite the limited nature of this court's remand, Defendant subsequently filed with the trial court a number of motions, including a motion for reduction in sentence, a motion to arrest judgment, and a motion to vacate his conviction. These motions were denied by the trial court. Defendant appeals the denial of these motions.
"Under the `mandate rule' of the law of the case doctrine, the trial court below was bound to follow our directions." State v. Lopes, 2001 UT 85, ¶ 18, 34 P.3d 762 (citing Thurston v. Box Elder County, 892 P.2d 1034, 1037-38 (Utah 1995)). As set forth above, our remand order specifically remanded the case to the trial court "for the limited purpose of imposing sentence for the sodomy on a child conviction."Johnston, 2002 UT App 407.
This is precisely what the trial court did in this case and Defendant cites no prejudicial error committed by the trial court. To the contrary, Defendant actually benefitted by the decision of the trial court, as he was sentenced to the lowest possible duration of time allowed under the Utah Code. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-3-201(6)(a) (Supp. 1997); -403.1 (Supp. 1997).
Accordingly, we affirm.