In re C.M. (C.M. v. State)
2014 UT App 234
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- C.M., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent in absentia on April 14, 2009 in the Fifth District Juvenile Court.
- A later stipulated motion reduced the levels of offenses for which C.M. was adjudicated.
- C.M. filed a Motion to Strike the adjudication based on lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
- The juvenile court denied the motion in August 2012; C.M. did not appeal the August 24, 2012 order.
- C.M. filed a second motion on September 25, 2012 asserting lack of jurisdiction; the court denied on October 29, 2012.
- This appeal concerns whether the second motion is barred by law-of-the-case and whether the court properly retained jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the law-of-the-case bars the second motion. | C.M. argues the second motion raises jurisdictional defects not previously decided. | State contends the second motion reiterates the same issues and is barred. | Second motion barred by law-of-the-case; no reopening. |
| Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction to adjudicate. | C.M. contends there was no personal or subject-matter jurisdiction. | State asserts waiver of jurisdiction defects by appearance and stipulation. | Court did not reach merits; waiver issues discussed but ultimately resolved by law-of-the-case ruling. |
| Timeliness of appeal from the August 24, 2012 order and from the October 29, 2012 order. | C.M. seeks review of all final orders. | State argues no timely notice of appeal from the August 24, 2012 order and that October 29, 2012 order is not separately appealable. | No timely appeal from August 24, 2012 order; October 29, 2012 order affirmed by law-of-the-case rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters v. Pine Meadow Ranch Home Association, 2007 UT 2 (Utah) (ad hominem attacks in briefs are improper and may lead to sanctions)
- Reisbeck v. HCA Health Servs. of Utah, Inc., 2000 UT 48 (Utah) (timeliness of appeal governs jurisdiction)
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schettler, 768 P.2d 950 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (order denying relief under rule 60(b) is final and appealable)
- Mascaro v. Davis, 741 P.2d 938 (Utah) (void judgments and post-judgment relief standards)
- IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D&K Mgmt., Inc., 2008 UT 73 (Utah) (law-of-the-case and standards for reopening decisions)
- State v. Wolf, 2014 UT App 18 (Utah) (recent admonitions on improper briefing; relevance to procedure)