Case Name: Andrew BINKERD, Appellant, v. SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, Appellee
Court: Utah Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 2015-07-30
Citations: 358 P.3d 330
Docket Number: No. 20131021-CA
Parties: Andrew BINKERD, Appellant, v. SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, Appellee.
Judges: Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, JOHN A. PEARCE and KATE A. TOOMEY,
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 358
Pages: 330–330

Head Matter:
2015 UT App 181
Andrew BINKERD, Appellant, v. SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, Appellee.
No. 20131021-CA.
Court of Appeals of Utah.
July 30, 2015.
Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, JOHN A. PEARCE and KATE A. TOOMEY,

Opinion:
Per Curiam Decision
PER CURIAM:
1 Andrew Binkerd appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, We affirm.
T2 Binkerd was charged in justice court with driving while impaired and other various offenses after a traffic stop initiated by Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Lisa Steed. Binkerd pleaded guilty to the driving while impaired charge in 2009. In 2018 Binkerd filed a Petition for Post-Conviection Relief in the district court seeking to have his guilty plea set aside. The district court dismissed the petition. Binkerd appeals, arguing that South Salt Lake City withheld material exculpatory evidence concerning professional misconduct by Trooper Steed. Binkerd also argues that additional evidence of Trooper Steed's misconduct not known at the time constitutes newly discovered evidence that entitles him to relief under the Post-Convietion Remedies Act.
T3 This court has recently resolved the precise issues raised by Binkerd. See Monson v. Salt Lake City, 2015 UT App 1836, 351 P.3d 821; Magallanes v. South Salt Lake City, 2015 UT App 154, 853 P.3d 621, 2015 WL 3790856. In Monson and Magallanes we concluded that the evidence of Trooper Steed's misconduct was merely impeachment evidence rather than exculpatory. Accordingly, the City had no obligation to disclose the evidence prior to the plea. See Monson, 2015 UT App 136, ¶ 10-11, 351 P.3d 821. The analysis set forth in Monson and Magallanes conclusively resolves the issues in this case because both the arguments raised and the factual background are nearly identical to that in the other two decisions.
1 4 Affirmed.