Case Name: STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LaVell ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1969-08-06
Citations: 23 Utah 2d 78
Docket Number: No. 11191
Parties: STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LaVell ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: CALLISTER, Jr. and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 23
Pages: 78–83

Head Matter:
457 P.2d 969
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LaVell ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 11191.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Aug. 6, 1969.
Galen Ross, of Mitsunaga & Ross, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.

Opinion:
ELLETT, Justice:
The appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor in a justice of the peace court. He appealed to the district court where on a trial de novo, he was again convicted. He now attempts to appeal to this court and claims error below in that the court improperly received evidence at the trial. He makes no contention that the statute under which he was charged is invalid.
Article VIII, Section 9, of the Utah Constitution provides:
Appeals shall also lie from the final judgment of justices of the peace in civil and criminal cases to the District Courts on both questions of law and fact, with such limitations and restrictions as shall be provided by law; and the decision of the District Courts on such appeals shall be final, except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a statute.
This court on a number of occasions has held that in cases such as this the decision of the district court is final and that a further appeal would not lie except where the validity or constitutionality of a statute is involved. The first time the question of lack of right to appeal was raised in this court was in the case of Salt Lake City v. Lee, 49 Utah 197, 161 P. 926. The most recent case holding to the same effect is Salt Lake City v. Peters, 22 Utah 2d 127, 449 P.2d 652. See also State v. Lyte, 75 Utah 283, 284 P. 1006.
While the State has not moved to dismiss this appeal, we nevertheless are without power to entertain it and so we dismiss the appeal on our own motion. This court heretofore on its own motion dismissed an appeal in the case of Logan City v. Blotter, 75 Utah 272, 284 P. 333.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
CALLISTER, Jr. and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.
HENRIOD, J., concurs in the result.