Appellant then filed a petition for extraordinary writ in the district court, seeking to reinstate the stricken appeal and to be released from jail pending her new trial. The district court granted the petition in part, reinstating the stricken appeal and ruling that appellant's incarceration on the charges in that case was unlawful. The court ruled, however, that appellant was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause in compliance with rule 27 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure to obtain release from jail in the other cases. She further claims that compliance with rule 27 is impossible because there is no factual record in an appeal from justice court. We find no due process violation in the fact that the rules treat dissimilar proceedings differently.
Criminal convictions are fundamentally different from small claims judgments.
In an appeal from a justice court criminal conviction, there is good reason for the district court to assess the merits of the appeal and examine the offender's suitability for release before releasing the offender from jail. Appellant's other claims are also unpersuasive. At the trial court level, an application for a certificate of probable cause does not require a recitation of facts developed at trial. Rather, the application must be supported by a memorandum identifying the issues on appeal and supporting the appellant's position that those issues raise a substantial question of law or fact reasonably likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, or a sentence that does not include a jail or prison term. See Utah R. Crim.