316 P.3d 994
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant De Royale Johnson was convicted of burglary, attempted theft, possession of a dangerous weapon, criminal mischief, and providing false information to a peace officer.
- Charging occurred July 9, 2010; multiple continuances and transport refusals caused delays.
- The first-priority case was State v. Kuntz, an older case with out-of-town witnesses.
- At a June 2011 scheduling conference, Johnson’s trial was set in second place behind Kuntz.
- On July 6, 2011, trial was postponed due to Kuntz’s readiness; Johnson objected under Rule 17(b).
- Johnson sought dismissal under Rule 25, arguing the court’s priority violated Rule 17(b); the trial court denied, Johnson was convicted, and appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 17(b) requires automatic displacement of a calendared case. | Johnson argues priority must displace Kuntz. | State contends scheduling and relief considerations allowed the court to defer Johnson. | Untimely/unpreserved; no automatic displacement required on this record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salt Lake Cnty. v. Carlston, 776 P.2d 653 (Utah Ct.App. 1989) (timeliness prevents sandbagging and improper post-trial objections)
- State v. Valdez, 2006 UT 39 (Utah 2006) (objections to scheduling must be timely to permit remedies)
- State v. Parkin, 742 P.2d 715 (Utah Ct.App. 1987) (timely objections to instructions; trial court remedy)
- State v. Kazda, 545 P.2d 190 (Utah 1976) (proper timing of objections to ensure court can remedy)
- In re A.T.I.G., 2012 UT 88, 293 P.3d 276 (Utah 2012) (preservation requirements for appellate review)
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (preservation and timeliness requirements for trial issues)