Case Information
*1
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS
R IQO M ARIANO P EREA , Appellant, v.
S TATE OF U TAH Appellee.
Opinion No. 20150144-CA Filed April 13, 2017 Second District Court, Ogden Department The Honorable Ernest W. Jones No. 140907173 Randall W. Richards, Attorney for Appellant Sean D. Reyes and Erin Riley, Attorneys for Appellee J UDGE J ILL M. P OHLMAN authored this Opinion, in which J UDGES M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN and K ATE A. T OOMEY concurred.
POHLMAN, Judge: Riqo Mariano Perea appeals the district court’s January
12, 2015 order summarily dismissing his petition for
postconviction relief. Perea also seeks review of the district
court’s October 16, 2015 order denying his rule 60(b) motion for
relief from judgment. We affirm the first order, and we conclude
that the second order is beyond the scope of this appeal.
In 2010, Perea was convicted of two counts of aggravated
murder and two counts of attempted murder. He was sentenced
to life in prison without the possibility of parole for each
aggravated murder conviction and three years to life for each
attempted murder conviction. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed
Perea’s convictions in
State v. Perea
,
¶4 While the present appeal was pending, Perea filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. This court stayed the appeal for sixty days and temporarily remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of ruling on the motion. On October 16, 2015, the district court entered an order denying Perea’s motion. Perea did not file an amended notice of appeal or a new notice of appeal after the entry of that order. On appeal, Perea’s brief focuses exclusively on the district
court’s denial of his rule 60(b) motion. Although the district
court’s summary dismissal of his postconviction petition was the
subject of Perea’s notice of appeal, he mentions that order only
in passing and does not identify or brief any issues related to it.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary dismissal of
Perea’s petition for postconviction relief.
See Reynolds v. Woodall
order denying his rule 60(b) motion, we lack jurisdiction to review it. “A ruling on a rule 60(b) motion culminates in a separate, appealable order and, thus, may not be included in an existing appeal because the issues raised in the appeal predated the ruling on the rule 60(b) motion.” Dennett v. Ferber , 2013 UT App 209, ¶ 3, 309 P.3d 313 (per curiam). Because Perea did not file a new or amended notice of appeal following the denial of the rule 60(b) motion, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his challenge to that ruling. See id. *3 We affirm the summary dismissal order, and we lack
jurisdiction to consider the denial of Perea’s rule 60(b) motion.