*1 EARLE, Anthony S. Petitioner, PRISON, STATE UTAH
WARDEN OF CORRECTIONS, OF DEPARTMENT UTAH, Re Defendant OF
STATE
spondent.
No.
Supreme Court
April Fericks, for
Russell C. petitioner. plaintiff and Bearnson, Dam, R. Paul Van Barbara respon- for defendant dent.
Anthony
appeal from a denial
petition
was
Appeals
the Utah Court
a motion to reinstate
1989. Earle filed
24, 1989,
was denied
appeal May
which
August
1989. On
certiorari with this
Earle filed a
for
granted
and ordered
court. We
certiorari to the Utah Court
a writ of
that writ for
Appeals. We now dismiss
jurisdiction.
jurisdiction
does not have
This court
hear a case
which
According to
timely filed.
certiorari is not
45(a),
Su
Rules of
Utah
former rule
Court,
a writ of certio-
preme
thirty days after the
rari had to be filed
appeals decision.
entry of a court of
45(b)
mandated that a
timely
not
not
filed could
be
court,
“jurisdic-
as it would be
Although rule
al
tionally out of time.”
suspension of
discretionary
lowed for
rules,
provi
requirements
5(a),
except
4(e),
rules
and 45 were
sions of
option.
ed from that
*2
181
be able
ap
representation, petitioner will
the court of
such
appeal to
Earle’s
27,
Ab
on
hearing
of those claims on
peals was
to secure a full
receipt
peti
of a
court’s
the
sent
in
corpus
the
a new
for habeas
motion for extension
rehearing or a
tion for
court.1
district
(neither
45(e)
of which
rule
time under
of
filed),
in which a
the time
petitioner
J.,
STEWART,
concurs.
by this
could be
for certiorari
27, 1989, thirty days
May
expired on
court
HOWE, Associate Chief Justice:
The interim mo
April 27 order.
after the
(Concurring),
by the
appeal, denied
reinstate the
tion to
deadline,
not toll this
appeals,
of
did
court
dismissal of the writ of
I concur in the
had,
certiorari
the
even if it
but
However,
express
I
no
certiorari.
the
thirty days of
filed within
was not
may present his
petitioner
on whether
of that motion
denial
corpus
petition for habeas
claims on a new
circumstances,
are without
we
these
Under
question has not
in the district court. That
of
proceed
this writ
jurisdiction to
with
presented to us for deci-
been briefed nor
certiorari.
therefore,
believe,
it would be
I
that
sion.
jurisdiction to hear
fact that we lack
The
any opinion
premature
express
for me to
and is
is unfortunate
the merits of this case
subject.
on that
petitioner
arguably due to the fact
ap-
by counsel until we
unrepresented
ZIMMERMAN,
(Concurring in
Justice:
grant of certio-
lawyer
a
after the
pointed
Result),
the
us,
before
pleadings
rari. Based
argu-
at least an
petitioner appears to have
of the writ of
I concur in the dismissal
by
trial
error
the
able case for reversible
However,
in
join
I cannot
foot-
certiorari.
him withdraw
refusing
to allow
to
court
statement of the standard
note one’s
impossible
predict
to
guilty plea.
It is
his
subsequent writ for
determining whether a
evidentiary hearing whether
without an
may
extraordinary relief
be entertained
good cause for withdraw-
Earle could show
in Fernandez v.
trial court. As stated
plea,
allegations
his
ing
guilty
his
but
(Utah 1989), petition-
Cook,
a
notes. C.J., concurring
HALL, concurs *3 ZIMMERMAN, J. DWIGGINS,
Sylvia Plaintiff Appellant, JEWELERS, Defendant
MORGAN Appellee.
No. 890084. Dalby, Storey, E. Matthew Ronald J. Supreme appellant. Court plaintiff Black, Quigley, L. Lewis B. John 1991. appellee. for defendant and Dwiggins appeals the Sylvia tri- grant summary judgment in
al court’s Morgan defendant Jewelers. favor of argues court erred Dwiggins lower determining Morgan Jewelers did proximately duty not breach a of care or Dwiggins’ injuries as a matter of cause alleged facts as are affirm. The law. We give duty rise to a insufficient to Morgan part of Jewelers. shopping Morgan
Dwiggins was strip store located mall Jewelers Valley City in West 2774 West 3500 South when it was robbed on December robbery, one of During the course of Dwiggins struck on the head robbers with a crowbar. previ- Morgan
This Jewelers store had ously robbed in December of 1981. guard, The store had no armed an all-fe- robbery, the time of the and a male staff at pho- dummy camera that did not record or tograph. stationary It had two also emergency two or three mobile buttons to notify Company, the Peak Alarm notify police. would then