Opinion ID: 2631802
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: interpreting lopes i

Text: ¶ 17 Lopes further contends that even if he did, in fact, knowingly and voluntarily enter unconditional guilty pleas to murder, with a sentencing enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon, the remand order of Lopes I requires a trial on this charge even though the State elected to dismiss the gang enhancement. We disagree with this reading of Lopes I. ¶ 18 Under the mandate rule of the law of the case doctrine, the trial court below was bound to follow our directions in Lopes I. See Thurston v. Box Elder County, 892 P.2d 1034, 1037-38 (Utah 1995). Whether the trial court did so hinges on the interpretation of our remand order in Lopes I. The crucial question, then, is what we meant when we remand[ed the case] for a new trial on the gang enhancement charge. State v. Lopes, 1999 UT 24, ¶ 21, 980 P.2d 191. ¶ 19 Lopes contends that this language, together with the rules of appellate and criminal procedure, required that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas as to the entire charge against him, i.e., murder, with sentencing enhancements for use of a dangerous weapon and group criminal activity, and have a trial on this charge. We disagree. As to the language in Lopes I, nowhere in that opinion did we state the necessity to try the charge of murder, with sentencing enhancements for use of a dangerous weapon and group criminal activity. Rather, in remanding for a new trial on the gang enhancement charge, id., we contemplated only that Lopes be afforded a trial as to that portion of the charge against him. ¶ 20 We also disagree with Lopes's contention that the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure require a trial for murder, with sentencing enhancements for use of a dangerous weapon and group criminal activity. Rule 28(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure states in part, If a judgment of conviction is reversed, a new trial shall be held unless otherwise specified by the appellate court. Similarly, rule 30(b) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in part, If a judgment of conviction is reversed, a new trial shall be held unless otherwise specified by the court. As we read them, neither rule requires a trial in this case. ¶ 21 These rules only contemplate a trial on all issues unless the appellate court directs otherwise. Here, as noted above, we have directed otherwise, remanding for a trial only on the sentencing enhancement for the group criminal activity portion of the charge against Lopes. Accordingly, we conclude that neither the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure nor the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure require the trial court to provide Lopes with a trial now that the trial court has dismissed the gang enhancement charge.