*1 Therefore, majority agrees argument par- even if the CME's EnergySolutions. EnergySolu- alternative had leased from and determines that CME has that CME cel standing representation of this based on its corridor, CME could part of the tions was facially Although somewhat public interest. storage for waste because parcel use the not persuasive, argument would create CME's parcel in any interest longer has CME no long-term consequences for the moot- dire that CME had restricted any interest argument, no ness doctrine. Under CME's storage on the conducting waste from CME may change, a matter how the cireumstances the relief re- Accordingly, CME parcel. that, always argue very party could at the not affect CME's case would quests this least, requested relief would affect the parcel on Section rights regarding use process. Ac- integrity of the administrative 29. position cordingly, adoption of CME's potential purchase regard to the 31 With effectively would eviscerate the mootness that was excludedfrom the property of other pertains challenges. to land use doctrine as corridor, any does not have CME redrawn reason, adopt I For this decline to CME's property. rights associated with actual reasoning. leasing, nor does CME own CME is not CONCLUSION recog- parcel property. of that We do right purchase property protectable nize claims are moot because CME's now right is conferred contract. unless right does not have a that will be CME rights per- contractual CME has no Because affected if the district court were to declare property that was ex- taining to the other County's decisions unenforceable. Tocele corridor, from the redrawn there is cluded any potentially not have affected CME does own, rights way overturning our Tooele property because CME does not no which County's decisions will affect CME rela- lease, any proper- nor does CME at this time property. tion to that Further, ty vicinity in the of the corridor. prohibits land use the mootness doctrine IIL THE ALLEGED INCREASES IN RA- challenges continuing all from after DRIFT AF- DIOACTIVE DO NOT litigant's property rights relevant have been CME, reasons, FECT WHICH NO LONGER I transferred. For these would dis- ANY INTEREST THE AD- appeal. HAS IN miss this JOINING PROPERTY 4 35 Justice concurs in WILKINS CME that as a leasee of a contends Associate Chief Justice DURRANTS adjacent EnergySo- land that parcel of dissenting opinion. land, newly acquired lutions' CME faces in- EnergySolutions creased risks from waste
disposal activities. CME further contends
requests
if
the relief CME
not face these increased risks.
CME would
that it has LAYCOCK, Judge, Claudia Fourth Judi- Court, County, cial District Utah III, THE DOCTRINE PRO- MOOTNESS Utah, Respondent, State of LAND USE HIBITS CHALLENGES Party TO CONTINUE AFTER ALL OF THE Jones, Trenton Real in Interest. LITIGANT§S RELEVANT PROPER No. 20070503. TY HAVE BEEN TRANS- RIGHTS Supreme Court of Utah. FERRED Aug.4,2009. Finally, public claims that the CME enforce, right, has which CME seeks to impartial process.
a fair and administrative *3 Shurtleff, Gen., Att'y
Mark L. Brett J. Gen., Att'y City, Delporto, Asst. Salt Lake Sant, Provo, petitioner. Jason for Johnson, City, Brent M. Salt Lake Provo, respondent Esplin, Michael D. for real party in interest.
On Certification from the Utah Appeals Court of NEHRING, Justice:
INTRODUCTION case, agreed T1 In this to consider a petition extraordinary writ filed challenging ruling made State a restitution by Judge Laycock in the Fourth Claudia District Court. ordered in All pay approximately Claims that released Mr. Jones from Trenton Jones $3000 present, past, declined to order Mr. Jones or future claims. restitution but $600,000 wages that had for lost almost challenges Judge Layeock's T6 The State sought been the State. ruling, claiming abused her Layeock'sruling at odds with Judge was petition It discretion. filed for extraordi- sections 77-882- provisions of Utah Code 65B(d) nary pursuant writ to rule of the Utah -601, through Victims Res- Utah's Crime Rules Civil Procedure and rule 19 of the Laycock Act. hold that titution Appellate Utah Rules Procedure. "The she did not determine erred when directing Judge Lay- an order State seeks Act, required by the but her restitution as evidentiary an hearing, cock to hold deter- court-ordered restitution law- order for was mine and order defen- *4 applica- ful. We therefore State's pay including dant to lost future extraordinary tion relief for the limited for wages, comply and otherwise with the re- Laycock purpose instructing Judge of to de- quirements argu- of State law." Prior to oral termine ments, Jones, party Mr. as the real in inter- est, suggestion filed a of mootness based on BACKGROUND Mrs. Beach's settlement of her civil suit. appeals The court of certified appeal to 12 Mr. was in an automo- Jones involved us, jurisdiction pursuant and we have to Larry accident Beach. know bile We T8A-8-102(8)(b). Utah Code section rely Judge little about the accident and on Fact, Laycock's Findings of which were not
challenged,
light
to shed some
on the inci-
STANDARDOF REVIEW
dent.
By filing
petition
T7
extraordinary
2004,
early February morning
T3
an
in
On
65B(d)
pursuant
writ
to rule
of the Utah
driving
Mr. Jones was
east on state road 78
Procedure,
of
recog
Rules
Civil
the State
asleep.
when he fell
Mr. Jones's vehicle
right
nizes that it "has no
to receive a reme
swerved into the
lane and struck
westbound
dy that corrects a lower court's mishandling
Mr. Beach's vehicle head-on. Mr. Beach was
Barrett,
particular
of a
case." State v.
pronounced dead at the seene of the accident.
¶88, 23,
UT
made her restitution (8) solely at fault in the fatal accident? and ing. Did the district court abuse its discretion 65B(d)(@2) under rule is Relief declining and chil- the widow reviewing at the discretion completely in- dren of Mr. Beach for their loss provides that particular, the rule In court. if come he would have earned he had not ... where an inferior granted "relief be asking In been killed the accident? us (empha its discretion." Id. court ... abused issues, seeking, these the State address added). Barrett, acknowledged the sis relief, judicial ultimate that we order as its obtaining such re difficulty party faces Judge Laycock to redetermine party petitioning that "a lief when we stated $572,769.60 and order Mr. Jones to 65B(d) extraordinary relief is not for rule wages. Mr. restitution for Beach's lost relief, party if even entitled to receive begin with the mootness. first issue of court successfully a lower establishes ¶ 23, 2005 UT abused its discretion." I. THIS CASE IS NOT MOOTBECAUSE words, party may prove In other P.3d 682. THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN its discretion and that a district court abused THE PARTIES NOT ENDED HAS be entitled to relief. still not THE OF AND PURPOSES RESTITU- *5 ¶9 Barrett, we clarified the consider TION HAVE NOT BEEN FUL- must take into account when ations a court FILLED extraordinary reviewing petition a relief. multiple argues stated that a court will consider We 112 Mr. Jones that the is factors, including "egregiousness the of the sue of restitution is moot Mrs. Beach because error, significance legal alleged the Mr. against has settled her civil suit Jones. presented by petition, severity the the appeal during pendency issue "An is moot if the change appeal the cireumstances so that the by al consequences occasioned the error," leged any eliminated, additional that controversy thereby rendering and factors is regarded important as to the case's requested impossible legal be the relief or of no Stevens, 32, 19, Id. 124. outcome. v. effect." Baker 2005 UT (internal 114 quotation P.3d 580 marks omit Additionally, in 110 the case of resti ted). underlying by The that is raised issue tution, reviewing court will a not disturb suggestion the of mootness is whether a civil court's determination unless the district victim, and a settlement between defendant authority prescribed by court exceeds the which includes a release of all claims Twitchell, law or abuses discretion. State v. victim, may impos from bar district court (Utah 866, Ct.App. 868-69 8 ing involving in a criminal action restitution 1992). appropriate re With standard of the same incident. This is an issue of first forth, turn now to view set the merits impression. the case. argues 1 13 Mr. that the contro- Jones first versy parties ended and that between the has DISCUSSION purposes of restitution have been ful- ¶11 analysis begin by taking up our We result, that filled. As a Mr. Jones concludes the issue of mootness raised Mr. Jones. damages there are no claims of for the dis- petition then turn We will to the State's adjudicate. will trict court We address extraordinary relief in which it asked us to arguments each of Mr. in turn. Jones's three These are the follow address issues. First, argues (1) 1 14 Mr. Jones that the con- ing: Did the district court abuse its dis failing properly troversy determine and Mrs. Beach cretion between himself signed complete and court-ordered restitution ended when Mrs. Beach the Release (2) release, By required by signing law? Did the district court of All Mrs. Claims. assuming abuse its discretion in that com Beach released Mr. Jones and his insurance apply company past, present, all parative negligence principles would "from and relating to the determining restitution and that there future claims and demands" effectively equivalent Mr. Beach. The release order pecuni death of to actual ary extinguished damages."); State v. Applegate, all of Mrs. Beach's claims 266 Kan. 1072, (1999) 986, P.2d (holding against Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones party because the state was not a against to a settle because there are no further claims agreement, ment "[a] civil release of claims Beach, him Mrs. there is no further con- specifically preclude does not and cannot troversy parties. between the case"); court-ordered a criminal misapprehends opera- 115 Mr. Jones (Minn. Belfry, 811, State v. 416 N.W.2d tion of the release in the context of Utah's Ct.App.1987)(holding though that even agree restitution scheme. We the re- signed victim has settled a claim civil controversy lease ended the between Mr. release, "the state is not from barred seek is, Jones and Mrs. Beach. Mrs. Beach how- ing, imposing, or the court from reasonable ever, party petition not a to the before us. restitution"); State, Urias 987 S.W.2d parties appeal The involved in the case on ("[T]he (Tex.App.1999) settlement on be Thus, are the of Utah and Mr. Jones. injured party half of the insurance Jones, resolving against her claims Mr. company was not a bar to the trial court pro- Mrs. Beach did not affect the criminal ..."). ordering restitution. ceedings between the State and Mr. Jones. ¶16 controversy parties between the agree Supreme with the Florida Court's petition to the before us did not end with the statement on this matter. settlement of the civil action. The State is a with, agreement "While a settlement ease, party only to the criminal which has not of, compa- release a defendant's insurance yet fully been resolved. Because the contro ny may willingness reflect victim's versy parties between the petition to this has accept paid in the amount full satisfaction ended, yet the case not moot. liability, for all does not reflect the *6 ¶ 17 Mr. Jones also that the case is willingness People accept purpose moot because the for restitution has sum satisfaction of the defendant's reha- been fulfilled the According release. society. bilitative and deterrent debt to A Jones, purpose Mr. the of restitution is to pursuant restitution order to a defendant's compensate pecuniary the victim all dam plea agreement an is between the defen- ages support caused the defendant. For dant and the state. The victim is not proposition, of this he looks to section 77- party agreement, to the and a release " 38a-102(11), which states that '[rlestitution' the victim cannot act to release a defen- full, partial, means or nominal dant from his financial to the debt state pecuniary damages to a victim...." Utah pris- more than it terminate could his 77-38a-102(11)(2008). Code Ann. on sentence." ¶ 18 State, (Fla.2008) Kirby 238, note, however, v. 863 So.2d 243 We the Bernal, (quoting People Cal.App v. may compensate 101 .4th fact that restitution a victim 155, (2002)). 622, Cal.Rptr.2d 123 627 It is a that, for his loss does not mean from the jurisdic principle well-established in other defendant's the perspective, or state's the tions that a civil releasing only purpose settlement a de for restitution is to a debt liability Instead, above, fendant from does not foreclose the to the victim. as we noted seeking state from restitution a criminal restitution is mandated statute and is a 533, Iniguez, case. State v. 169 part See Ariz. 821 of a eriminal imposed by sanction ("[The 194, (Ct.App.1991) P.2d distinc Thus, state. unlike an award of civil dam tion damages ages, between civil and product orderly which is the of an means that resolving the victim's release of civil liabili dispute method of a between ty prevent defendant, does not ordering the state from victim and a an award of restitu (em remedy the criminal law of restitution." purpose. purpose tion has a two-fold One is pecuniary omitted)); Maxich, the victim for dam phasis People v. 971 P.2d ("[A] 268, (Colo.Ct.App.1998) release ages. purpose, The other as liability sanction, from obtained a civil settlement criminal is to rehabilitate and deter authority defendant, others, cannot limit a criminal court's illegal and from future at 242.1 Kirby, 863 So.2d begin by exploring See behavior. writ. We whether Supreme Court's the Florida district court abused its discretion when agree with wishes that "while the victim's statement failed to determine and court-or relevant, they concerning are are required by dered restitution as Utah Code judge, not dispositive-it is the the vic examining a section 777-382-8302. stat When tim, society's competing weigh who must ute, plain language. first look to its Sav omitted) (in (alteration at 248 needs." Id. Vill., 102, ¶ 18, age Youth 2004 UT v. Utah omitted). Kirby quotation marks ternal Statutory language pre 1242. noncompen- on restitution's court elaborated legislative process sumed to reflect satory by stating, role advisedly give[s] each word and effect "use[s] is an effective rehabilitative
"Restitution
according
ordinary
and
to each term
its
penalty because it forces the defendant
Low,
accepted meaning."
State
UT
terms,
confront, in
the harm his
concrete
(internal
58, ¶ 23,
quotation
related services 121 What the statute does not make relating physical to or mental health clear, according Judge Laycock, is the to care, and including nonmedical care 77-88a- definition of restitution. Section with a treatment rendered accordance 102(11) "full, par restitution as the defines healing recognized by the law method of tial, pecuniary dam or nominal treatment; place of of 77-882a-102(11). § ages to a victim." Id. (ii) necessary physical the cost of This definition does not make the distinctions refinements, rehabilitation; such as the dis- occupational therapy and and definitional complete and court-ordered tion be determined. The tinction between statute even re restitution, elsewhere in the statute. made quires who has not received suffi approaches read the two to the We do not damages cient information from a victim or inject to definition of restitution substantive prosecutor complete to nevertheless make a ambiguity into restitution scheme. Utah's restitution determination "based on the best Indeed, whole, when read as the statute information available." Id. 77-38a- complete unambiguously defines 203(1)(c). provide Where facts do not a full pecuniary damages full as the amount evidentiary foundation, the court must base necessary to victim for losses its determination on the best information based on the caused a defendant factors Although available. the court must deter 77-38a-802(5)(c). listed section restitution, complete required mine it is not Laycock recognize, as did pay complete to order a defendant to restitu brief, obligatory in her that the determina- part tion as of the criminal sentence. Id. complete tion of restitution be reached with- ("In action, § 77-882-801 a criminal lawfully out the aid of facts sufficient to may require court a convicted defendant support damages allocate fault award added).2 (emphasis make restitution." A Indeed, case, a civil action. in this the facts court's "determination" of restitution is dif relating that collision took the life of ordering ferent from a defendant res scant, support Mr. Beach are sufficient determining complete titution. After restitu guilty plea, Mr. but otherwise unillu- Jones's tion, judge may a district court then order minating. Judge Laycock contends that court-ordered restitution as of the crimi making complete restitution determination nal sentence based on facts that would meet strong without a foundation of inap- facts is requirements the same strict as found in a propriate trial, and is best left to a civil setting.3 civil setting perform which is a better this task. persuasively She observes the statute Here, I 24 Judge Laycock failed to make a discovery does not afford a defendant complete determination of restitution. This opportunities, it assign nor does burdens of clearly was required error. She was to de- proof in the same manner as a civil action. In termine as set out in particular, Judge Laycock states that 78-882-802(2). Utah Code section litigation, a defendant can raise issues of proximate comparative negligence cause and Comparative Negligence May B. Issues of by using depositions interrogatories Apply to Determinations Restitution gather relevant information. A criminal res- hand, proceeding, titution on the other does 125 The State next provide safeguards. these Judge Laycock by assuming erred that com parative negligence principles might apply in is correct this case. The State contends that the dis points difficulty when she out the of ascer taining complete restitution based on incom trict court should have found as a matter of plete speculation. law that no facts and allocation of fault should be statute commands, however, assigned restitu to Mr. Beach. When Mr. Jones ambiguity 2. We long note that infects award or to decline to make an award so explains reasoning statute's of discretion to trial the court courts. Sec- on the record. tion 77-38a-301 states that "the court re- *9 quire a convicted defendant to make restitution" recognize safety We 3. that there is an additional 77-38a-302(1) while section states that "the place protect in to defendants mechanism when court shall order that the defendant make resti- complete supposition restitution based on or in- added.) (Emphases tution to victims." Addi- complete facts is made. Section 77-38a-403 states, 77-38a-302(3) tionally, section "If the prevents evidence of an order or of appropriate court that determines restitution is , being restitution from used as evidence in a civil inappropriate part, or under this the court shall proceeding. We would extend this to determina- restitution, make the reasons for the decision complete especially tions of in cases provision unambiguously court record." evidentiary This where the basis for such a determina- up cedes to trial courts the to either discretion tion would not stand in a civil trial. homicide, reasoning including explaining her for not he did not of negligent guilty to pled Ti-88a-302(8) ("If § wages. id. negligent. lost See was not that Mr. Beach admit appropri- that restitution is court determines above, facts the established As noted part, inappropriate or under this ate such a very limited. With case are this shall make the reasons for the decision court facts, it be diffi- of would limited foundation record."). part of the court Her conclusion anything. The to assume cult for a court justify limited to that the facts were too a finder of fact and have us sit as State would array for an of court-ordered restitution negligent. not We Mr. Beach was hold that damages including wages was well within lost Judge Laycock did not to do this. decline her discretion. fault; rather, was at that Mr. Beach assume ¶ given the seant facts reasoning persuasive she determined find this appeared Laycock's about the collision In ana Judge known within discretion. record, a fact- restitution, assume that she could the court lyzing imposition of stated, negligence, appeals "Matters of assign of a measure in a civil action could finder This was not error. resulting fault to Mr. Beach. proximate of cause and the amount of damages litigation. are left to civil Res best factual such a limited With only be ordered cases titution should basis, to be difficult for would liability is clear as a matter of law and where court-ordered restitu make decisions about clearly where commissionof the crime estab assumptions. The better tion based on causality injury damages." lishes decided, action, course of (Utah Robinson, State in a allow the facts to be established was to noted, Laycock Ct.App.1998). Judge As setting. a determination litigation Such procedural safeguards there are available to properly within her discretion. We was litigant setting in a civil that are unavail comparative of therefore hold that issues proceeding. able in a criminal restitution determining relevant negligence be When the facts of a case are limited or restitution, right Judge Laycock was to unclear, setting place the civil is the best factual basis and to recognize the limited them to be determined. impose to court-ordered res therefore refuse on it.4 titution based 130 The takes issue with an interpretation of the restitution scheme Not Entitled to an The Victim Was C. Laycock require Judge not to order Mr. does Compensating Award Restitution pay complete Were we Jones to Her Deceased Hus- Her the Loss adopt interpretation, we would to the State's Earnings Future band's out of the read "court-ordered restitution" ¶28 above, may be Judge Court-ordered restitution As we discussed statute. complete in amount Laycock her discretion when she did identical abused complete Judge but it need not be so. Unlike resti complete restitution. not determine tution, however, may be ad Laycock, obligation no court-ordered restitution was under justed ability in an to take the defendant's impose court-ordered restitution §Ann. 77-38a- into account. Utah Code complete equal amount restitution. Utah impo 302(5)(c). Because the Code Ann. 77-882a-801. The clear distinction between complete is discere- and court-ordered restitution of court-ordered restitution sition however, complicated, 77-382a-401. tionary, Judge Laycock properly exercised section 77-88a-401(1) mandates a court made her determina Section her discretion when she judgment amount of making enter a civil for the tion of court-ordered restitution. determination, upon a determination her court-ordered statutory restitution. This stat- Laycock criteria that a defendant owes followed 78-38a-302(2)(a) 4. We further note that section defendant, but caused, tim's losses were "necessary negligence, restitution as that defines the victim's own or indeed a victim for all losses caused person negligence in its determina- of some other *10 added.) (Emphasis A trial defendant." complete tion of a vic- decline to consider evidence that cannot utory provision complete case, clashes with the In33 the context of this onee Laycock completes assigned the restitution scheme task to her restitution/court-ordered complete on remand-to determine restitu- viability court- and casts doubt over of tion-that sum will be reduced to a civil ordered restitution. judgment, judgment may only that be en- 31 The internal contradictions within the through forced the Utah Rules of Civil Pro- ripe restitution scheme are not for our re- point, question cedure. At that a serious will appeal. appropriate view in It is this for us may arise over whether Mrs. Beach execute if to discuss several of them-even we do not judgment on her when she has released Mr. they directly decide them-because will bear against Jones from all of her claims him. proceedings on the future in this case. We question While this is one we need not an- appeal that have held this Mrs. Beach's today, likely swer we required will be of Mr. from all civil someday. answer it It release Jones claims did appear would restitution, scheme, not moot Mrs. Beach's claims to statutory under our the rationale we Judge Laycock reject it nor did excuse from her used to Mr. Jones' mootness claim may persuasive lose much of statutory obligation complete force to determine after a civiljudgment is entered. reasoning restitution. Our from the borrows Court, Supreme stated, Florida which Judge Laycock provided 34 Because ade- quate reasoning for her court-ordered resti- with, agreement aWhile settlement determination, tution we do not find that she of, compa- release a defendant's insurance such, abused her discretion. As we will not ny may willingness reflect a victim's disturb her order. accept the amount in full satisfaction for all liability, it willing- does not reflect the CONCLUSION People accept ness of the that sum in conclusion, the State's satisfaction of the defendant's rehabilita- petition to the extent society. tive and deterrent debt failed to complete determine restitution and State, (Fla.2003) Kirby 863 So.2d purpose therefore remand for the sole of (Internal omitted). quotation marks ascertaining complete restitution. We do not, however, Judge Layeock's disturb ruling ¶32 77-38a-401(2) Utah Code section re requiring Mr. pay Jones to court-ordered quires courts to reduce all determinations of restitution in the amount of $3355.68. judgments restitution to civil "en forceable under the Utah Rules of Civil Pro DURRANT, 1 36 Associate Chief Justice Presumably, cedure." a court use its WILKINS, Justice and Justice PARRISH contempt power as well as other coercive concur in opinion. Justice NEHRING's compel measures pay a defendant DURHAM, Justice, concurring: Chief court-ordered restitution. Section 77-882- authority 401 restricts the of a court or crime separately 1 37 I write degree to note a victim to the judg remedies available to a with uneasiness the statute's treatment ment creditor. The apparent trade-off made lost provides income. The statute for lost legislature "bodily income if the enacting inju- offense results the restitution ry," expenses if funeral to, offense re- hand, scheme was on expand the one sults "in death." Utah Code Ann. 77-882- authority of the courts to see to it 302(5)(b) (2008). majority opinion as- defendants court-ordered legislature sumes that the intended death to evidenced sections 77-838a-501 and 77- "bodily injury" be subsumed category, 382-502, permitting while courts to fix court- assumption probably and that is correct. If ordered restitution at an amount less than not, however, I hope point will be by taking into account legislature. clarified the financial resources of the defendant and the burden that of restitution will
impose regard obligations to the other defendant, as evidenced section T7-
38a-302(5)(c)(i).