2017 UT App 67

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

RIQO MARIANO PEREA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

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

JUDGE JILL M. POHLMAN authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES

MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN and KATE A. TOOMEY concurred.

POHLMAN, Judge:

¶1 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.

¶2 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, 2013 UT 68, 322 P.3d 624.
Perea v. State

20150144-CA 2 2017 UT App 67

¶3 Perea filed a petition for postconviction relief in the 

district court. On January 12, 2015, the court summarily 

dismissed the petition because it determined the claims raised 

had been previously adjudicated by the Utah Supreme Court on 

direct appeal. Perea timely filed a notice of appeal.

¶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.

¶5 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, 

2012 UT App 206, ¶ 18 n.10, 285 P.3d 7 (affirming the trial court’s 

order where appellant failed to identify or brief any issues 

relating to that order).

¶6 With regard to Perea’s challenge to the district court’s 

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.
Perea v. State

20150144-CA 3 2017 UT App 67

¶7 We affirm the summary dismissal order, and we lack 

jurisdiction to consider the denial of Perea’s rule 60(b) motion.