Opinion ID: 2548767
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the post-conviction court's memorandum decision was a final order

Text: ¶ 9 After briefs were filed with this court and after oral arguments were held, Kell challenged the jurisdiction of this court. Kell contends that the post-conviction court's failure to specifically address claim 12 in its memorandum decision robbed its decision of the finality necessary to qualify the decision as a final appealable order under rule 3 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. We disagree. ¶ 10 Generally, appeals to this court may be taken only from final orders or judgments. [4] Salt Lake City Corp. v. Layton, 600 P.2d 538, 539 (Utah 1979); see also Utah R.App. P. 3(a). If a judgment is not final, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal and must dismiss it. Powell v. Cannon, 2008 UT 19, ¶ 12, 179 P.3d 799. A judgment is final when it ends the controversy between the parties litigant. Layton, 600 P.2d at 539. Generally, a judgment will not be considered final and appealable if it resolves fewer than all of the claims pending in an action. Id. at 539-40. ¶ 11 In this case, we conclude that the post-conviction court's memorandum decision was a final judgment resolving all of Kell's claims for post-conviction relief. While the memorandum decision did not provide any specific analysis regarding why the post-conviction court was dismissing claim 12, the court clearly stated that it was granting the State's motion to dismiss and for partial summary judgment without qualification. In the State's motion, the State sought to dismiss some of Kell's claims as procedurally barred and sought summary judgment on Kell's other claims, including claim 12. Thus, while the court did not specifically mention claim 12 in its memorandum decision, the claim was rejected when the court granted the State's motion in its entirety. Although post-conviction courts should enumerate and explain their reasoning for denying or granting a motion for summary judgment on each requested claim, we conclude that the failure to do so is not reversible error. ¶ 12 Because the court granted the State's motion in its entirety, thereby disposing of all of Kell's claims, we hold that the decision was a final appealable order under rule 3 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over this appeal.