Salt Lake City v. Ausbeck, 2011 UT App 269

Ausbeck pled guilty to a class A misdemeanor in July 2010 and was sentenced in September 2010, with restitution left open for later determination.
A restitution hearing occurred and the court signed a formal restitution order on January 26, 2011; Ausbeck signed the order without waiting for objections.
Objections to the restitution order were filed with the trial court on March 9, 2011, but no action was taken by the court.
Ausbeck filed a notice of appeal on March 25, 2011, claiming appeal of both the sentence and the restitution order.
Under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), a timely notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the entry of the judgment or order appealed." The sentence is the final order for appeal purposes, and the restitution order is separately appealable.
The appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as both the sentence and the restitution order were untimely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the appeal timely as to Ausbeck's sentence?	Ausbeck argues timely under 4(a).	Court held untimely because notice filed after 30 days from sentencing.	Untimely; court lacks jurisdiction over sentence appeal.
Is the appeal timely as to the restitution order?	Restitution order could toll or relate to timely appeal.	Notice of appeal untimely for restitution despite objections period.	Untimely; court lacks jurisdiction over restitution appeal.
Do objections toll the time for appeal in this context?	Objections might toll under some theories.	No tolling effect from untimely objections; tolling did not occur.	No tolling effect; timely appeal not achieved.

State v. Bowers, 2002 UT 100 (2002) (sentence is the final order from which to appeal in criminal cases)
Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50 (2000) (appeal must be properly taken or be dismissed)
State v. Gibson, 2009 UT App 108 (2009) (restitution order is separately appealable as a civil judgment)