State v. Rigby , 433 P.3d 803 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • ~€
    fb
    FILED
    IN THE uTAH APPELLATE couRTs
    SUPREME CouRT oF THE STATE or UTAH jun 1 5 2013
    f
    STATE oF UTAH,
    Responden t,
    'U.
    ZACHARY RlGBY,
    Petitioner.
    Case No. 20160261
    ORDER
    On ]uly 06, 2016, We granted Zachary Rigby’s petition for certiorari After
    briefing and oral argument, it became apparent that the district court had entered two
    separate orders denying Mr. Rigby’s motion to suppress in this case. The first order Was
    submitted on November 8, 2013 and signed on December 23, 2013 (the December 23
    order). This order rested on only one ground for denial-that the search Was proper
    under the automobile exception. The second order was submitted on November 26,
    2013, signed on December 5, 2013, and entered into the docketing system on December
    10, 2013 (the December 10 order). Unlike the December 23 order, however, this order
    rested on two independent grounds for denial-that the search Was proper under the
    automobile exception and as a search incident to arrest. Both orders appeared operative,
    as neither had been stricken below.
    Accordingly, on December 21, 2017, We temporarily remanded this case to the
    district court to clarify Which order Was properly before us. On April 13, 2018, the
    district court issued a decision clarifying that the December 10 order Was the operative
    order and striking the December 23 order.
    Because it is now clear the December 10 order is the operative order, and that
    order contains an additional ground for denial (a search incident to arrest), there exists
    a separate, independent ground for affirming the district court’s denial of the motion to
    suppress Mr. Rigby has not challenged this ground in his petition for certiorari or in his
    briefs before us. We have repeatedly held that failure to challenge one of the district
    court’s independent grounds ”leaves us With no basis for reversal and thus no choice
    except to affirm." Kendall v. Olsen, 
    2017 UT 38
    , 11 9, --- P.3d ---; see also Gilbert v. Utah
    Stute Bar, 
    2016 UT 32
    , 11 24, 
    379 P.3d 1247
     (”[VV]e Will not reverse a ruling of the district
    court that rests on independent alternative grounds Where the appellant challenges only
    one of those grounds.”). Given the clarity of the law on this matter, rendering an
    opinion in this case Would yield little, if any, precedential value Accordingly, we
    conclude that we have improvidently granted Mr. Rigby's petition
    lT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for certiorari to the Utah Court of
    Appeals is dismissed
    FOR THE COURT on this
    /``
    /L"Lday cf Jo_q ,g ,2018;
    MR>\
    ' L/ \~/\x \_>\
    Matthew B. Durrant
    Chief ]u'stice
    CERTIFICATE OF l\/l/~\ll..lNG
    l hereby certify that on ]une 18, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing ORDER
    was sent by electronic mail to be delivered to:
    ]EFFREY S. GRAY
    jgray@agutah.gov
    BRANDON ]Ol-IN SMlTl-l
    bsmith@bslawoffice.com
    HONORABLE I                            

Document Info

Docket Number: Case 20160261

Citation Numbers: 2018 UT 0, 433 P.3d 803

Filed Date: 6/15/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024