Court Opinion

ID: 9794053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:57:26.227933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:58.171120
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the reasoning and result expressed in the main opinion. However, while I agree that the plain meaning of State v. Gordon, [913 P.2d 350] (Utah 1996) appears to require remand in this case, I fear that both Gordon and our opinion here may be misunderstood.
As I read Gordon, it stands for the proposition that once the court has reviewed the case sufficiently to determine that the petitioner has been denied the right of appeal, no farther review is necessary. I do not read Gordon as saying that any failure to file an appeal mandates a nunc pro tunc resentenc-ing to allow the opportunity to file an otherwise untimely appeal.
Unfortunately, only a very careful reading of Gordon and our decision here will reveal the consistent use of the word “denied” in relation to the preliminary determination of how it came to be that Gordon, and Penman, ended up without a timely appeal in the first place. I understand the word to be used in the sense that Gordon, and Penman, have been prevented in some meaningful way from proceeding with their appeals. Had we concluded that Penman simply waived his right to appeal by his own knowing inaction, he would not have been denied the opportunity to appeal, and remand would be inappropriate.

(Si

Michael J. Wilkins, Judge