Opinion ID: 2543706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: m.r. had the right to appeal adverse rulings related to his motion for a misplea and his motion to reject the plea bargain

Text: ¶ 21 Applying the principles outlined above, we first address whether M.R. had the right to appeal the district court's rulings regarding his right to be heard. The Victims' Rights Amendment does not address the question of M.R.'s right to appeal decisions impacting his right to be heard. The Rights of Crime Victims Act is on point, however, and we conclude that M.R. had the right to seek appellate review pursuant to the plain meaning of that statute. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-11(2)(b)(c) (1999). ¶ 22 We resolve this issue under a plain meaning analysis for two reasons. First, subsection 77-38-11(2)(b) explicitly provides that [a]dverse rulings on ... a motion or request brought by a victim of a crime or a representative of a victim of a crime may be appealed under the rules governing appellate actions, provided that no appeal shall constitute grounds for delaying any criminal ... proceeding. Id. § 77-38-11(2)(b). Second, subsection 77-38-11(2)(c) of the Utah Code declares that [a]n appellate court shall review all such properly presented issues, including issues that are capable of repetition but would otherwise evade review. Id. § 77-38-11(2)(c). In short, these two provisions demonstrate (1) that crime victims possess the right to appeal rulings on motions related to their rights as a victim and (2) that an appellate court must review appeals of such a nature. Accordingly, M.R.'s appeal is properly before us.