This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
- The Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual contact of a minor. Following the conviction, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court did not rule on. The Defendant then filed a notice of appeal (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- May 6, 2016: Jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge of criminal sexual contact of a minor.
- May 10, 2016: Defendant was sentenced.
- May 13, 2016: Judgment, sentence, and commitment were filed.
- May 16, 2016: Defendant filed a motion for a new trial.
- May 25, 2016: Defendant filed a supplement to the motion for a new trial.
- June 10, 2016: Defendant filed a notice of appeal.
- February 25, 2019: Motion to allow withdrawal and substitution of counsel was filed by Defendant’s current counsel and denied by the Court.
- April 9, 2019: Court issued an order to show cause.
- April 22, 2019: Defendant filed a pro se response to the order to show cause.
- April 24, 2019: Defendant’s current counsel filed an untimely response to the order to show cause (paras 2-3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court failed to rule on the motion for a new trial and suggested a limited remand to the district court to rule upon the pending motion (para 3).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court’s failure to rule on Defendant’s motion for a new trial bars his appeal for lack of finality (para 4).
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings (para 8).
Reasons
-
Per Briana H. Zamora, J. (Julie J. Vargas, J., and Jennifer L. Attrep, J., concurring): The Court determined that appellate jurisdiction is limited to timely appeals from final judgments or orders. Since the district court did not rule on the Defendant's motion for a new trial, the case lacked the finality required for appellate review. The Court emphasized that neither the filing of a notice of appeal nor the failure of the district court to rule on the motion for a new trial divested the district court of jurisdiction to dispose of the motion. The Court dismissed the appeal due to the lack of a final order and remanded the case to the district court, urging it to expeditiously rule on the Defendant's motion for a new trial (paras 4-7).
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.