Title: State v. Loddy

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

618 P.2d 60 (1980) The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Delbert Dean LODDY, Defendant and Respondent. No. 16855. Supreme Court of Utah. September 29, 1980. Ronald L. Elton, Tooele County Atty., H. Wayne Green, Tooele, for plaintiff and appellant. Edward K. Brass, Robert Van Sciver, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent. WILKINS, Justice: This is an appeal by the Tooele county attorney from an order of the District Court of that county dismissing a charge of theft against Defendant Delbert Dean Loddy. The right to appeal from such an order was, at the time the appeal was taken, granted by Section 77-39-4(1).[1] This section was replaced as of July 1, 1980, by Section 77-35-26. In attacking the dismissal, the county attorney raises two issues, and defendant maintains that the county attorney lacks *61 authority to bring this appeal. As we agree with defendant, only that issue will be here addressed. In State v. Jiminez,[2] this Court stated: The powers and duties of county attorneys were prescribed by the Legislature in Section 17-18-1, which provides in pertinent part: Likewise the attorney general is a constitutional officer[4] whose duties are prescribed by law. Section 67-5-1 sets forth those duties and provides in part: This appeal was taken by the Tooele county attorney in the name of the State, but the record does not disclose that he was rendering "such assistance as ... required by the attorney general ..." And significantly, the Tooele county attorney has not responded in any way to this critical point. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed. CROCKETT, C.J., and MAUGHAN, HALL and STEWART, JJ., concur. [1] All references are to Utah Code Ann., 1953, as amended. [2] Utah. 588 P.2d 707 (1978). [3] Id., at 707-708. See Utah Const., Art. VII, § 10. [4] See State v. Jiminez, supra, n. 3 and Utah Const., Art. VII, §§ 1 & 18.