Court Opinion

ID: 9796920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:08:11.428124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:47.501939
License: Public Domain

BENCH, Presiding Judge
(concurring in the result):
¶ 10 In the papers filed with this court, the parties agree that Georgia v. Randolph, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), is dispositive of this appeal. The State specifically concedes that this court “should reverse the trial court’s denial of [Djefendant’s motion to suppress and remand the case to the district court with instructions that [Djefendant be granted leave to withdraw his guilty pleas.” With the appeal thus resolved, there is no “case or controversy” that this court may properly now decide. See Shipman v. Evans, 2004 UT 44,¶ 33, 100 P.3d 1151.
¶ Í1 Because there is no justiciable controversy remaining between the parties, we are *614not at liberty to hear “academic contentions or render[ ] advisory opinions.” Utah Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coal, Inc. v. State, 2004 UT 32,¶ 19, 94 P.3d 217 (quotations and citation omitted). Therefore, any further opinion by this court concerning the merits of this case is mere dicta. See State v. Daniels, 2002 UT 2,¶ 35, 40 P.3d 611 (stating that dicta is defined as that which is “not critical to the holding”).
1112 Based on the State’s concessions, I agree that we should reverse the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and remand the case for further proceedings. I therefore concur in the result reached by the majority.