OCR Text |
Show South Salt Lake Bunding Permits Judgments Murray City Court 64952 vs KAD dba 3395 DA REIN E. 651 hZ IC vs DARCY DAVE L PERRY; 1177 W. Reconditioning to pltf; $555 -7 9--5-7 Kearns; $37 to New County Building Permits pltf; 9-- 5-7 Ln. .$102 to pltf; pit ft 9-- 5-7 vs ELLIS b to 65363 pltf; KAB 9-5- GERALD ROY 6513 S. pltf; va HAL KAB 39 TAVEY; to pltf; 9-- 5-7 va KENNETH L. LADD 4463 V. $88 to pltf KAB 320 S. 9-6- LANG-FOR- D; 9-- 9-7 300 E. $236 65418 . $27 Center St. Hur. 4951 to $127 . -7 va -7 65432 IC va ANN IC ARTHUR; 592 E 56OO S. $71 to pltf ; J 653 IC va WILLIAM ft LINDA PEROCESCHI; 1152 S 9th W. J $17 to pltf; MARGE 65437 IC va JOHN E. STUM; 550 Riley Ln. $194 9-- 5-7 I to pltf; WSC 9-5- -7 vs IARY ELLEN WA- G- , ll6l Greenwood Dr. to pltf; SAD va CHARLOTTE H STAFF; $60 655U aka SHARLET KONTOYA JENSEN aka MRS. L Kontoya: 1820 h. 784o s. Jensen 1 7125 S. , 17th E. $283 to pltf 65512 SAB va SHARLET KONTOYA aka CHARLOTTE KONTOYA ; 1820 E 780 S. $193 to pltf 9-- 5-7 Homes 2897 W, 6020 So. $13,000 SFD Exquisite Homes 2371 Ca- yenne Dr. Exquisite va SHARLET KONTOYA CHARLOTTE KONTOYA 1820 Exquisite Homes 2362 to pltf; 7840 S. $165 yenne Dr. $17,000 yenne Dr. yenne Dr. yenne Dr. yenne Dr. C. Vander SAB va RICK fc KRS. 4768 Harbor; $22 MAL-KSTR- OK ; to pltf; 9-5- to -7 Steel Coatings, Inc vs 6552O STRUCTO-LIT- ENGINEERING Agent: 150 W. E D. H. Bevan Cudahay Ln. $669 9-- 3-7 to pltf; 65524 Metropolitan Finance Co va KARGO BARTHOLOMEW; 192 E. 9th S. $570 to pltf; PATRICIA I. It 9-- -7 65527 KAB LA KONT va 2645 LARS EN; S 89OO Weat; $7 to pltf; 65571 KAB va REY FLORZZ 1001 W. 8th S. $40 to pltf; 9-- 3-7 9-- 5-7 65572 KAB ERLY V.C vs STANFORD L BEV- CLELLAN; 111 3 Range Rd. $680 to pltf; 65573 Doc. L Her. Cdt vs 9-- 4-7 LE ROY & KRS. 2855 V. $53 S -7 DA DC OCX; to pltf; South Salt Lake Building Permits M3vin Ingersoll 377 W. 2700 S. Lyr.n G. Hagen 173 W. Crystal Sylvan State South remodel office J. b. Profit Sharring 1000 W. Warehouse Ca- SFD $15,000 4532 Juo-it- er SFD $34,000 Granite Place y find no error in the record which would compel us to interfere with the action of the court below; its decision is affirmed. West Temple $57,000 clothing store Gracious Living 6009 yenne Dr. $16,000 Gracious Living 2898 6020 So. $16,000 Gracious Living 5994 yenne Dr. $16,000 Gracious Living 5987 yenne Dr. 6020 So. $15,000 WE CONCUR: Ca- SFD W. SFD SFD W. Mt. SFD Alice Jensen 2959 Way t JO, 000. 00 Estate W. LEGAL BRIEFS XEROXED & PRINTED Key Bank 3981 W. SFD SFD Alphagraphics can copy and collate at 5 per copy. Overnight Service JR Andersen SFD 3356 Heights $17,000 Ipliliirapliics 28 West 1st South Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone 364-845- 1 224 South 1300 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Telephone 582-828- 2 Valley SD JR Andersen 3277 LeBoeuf $U 000 SFD JR Andersen 3548 Paula Ann $18,000 SFD JR Andersen 3361 Valley Heights $18,000 SFD JR Andersen 3349 Valley Heights $18,000 SFD JR Andersen 3372 Valley Heights $18,000 Defendant and Appellant. Allan E. Mecham, Clerk ELLETT, Justice: The defendant appeals from a conviction of robbery and makes the assignments of error: follow-in- g 2. The trial court refused to permit a witness who had testified to act deaf-mu- te witness called to the stand. Leon McVanus 3890 W. 4700 So. $21,000 SFD JR Andersen 3278 LeBoeuf $17,000 Joseph L. Ek, as interpreter for a $53,000 bank $20,000 September 9, 1974 improper. W. Const. 7122 Watermill Way FILED The trial court denied a defense motion to suppress which was based on a claim that the method of identifying the defendant was Const. 3443 Stanton Dr, $20,000 No. 13226 and Respondent 1. SFD Key P. 2d 67L SFD $14,000 SFD Al Smith 6341 W. 3670 So. $14,000 SFD Granite School Dist. 2184 Lincoln lane $27,000 So. 378 SFD $20,000 First Security 4700 . Plaintiff Brockbank 7403 Rosalind Cir. $24,000 SFD Brockbank 1909 Curtis Dr. $34,000 SFD Brockbank 1992 Curtis Dr. $34,000 SFD & J. Allan Crockett, Justice SFD $15,000 Bailey 7731 Ellett, Justice State v. Plum, 14 Utah 2d 124, State of Utah, SFD Ca- .$13,000 F. Henri Henriod, Justice SFD Gracious Living 5974 $15,000 Chief Justice A. H. 1 Ca- Ca- -. yenne Dr. , SFD Ca- Gracious Living 2872 yenne Dr. E. R. Callister, Jr. Ca- $16,000 Gracious Living 2861 yenne Dr. $16,000 Gracious Living 2887 After the pronouncement of judgment, the defendant moved the court to grant him permission to withdraw his plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty. It is the defendant's contention here that his plea of guilty was unduly influenced by representations of the arresting officer and his counsel, who had been assigned by the court, that he would not be required to serve a term in prison, and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for permission to withdraw his plea of guilty. The fact that the defendant's hopes of leniency were not realized could not be made a basis for a reversal by this court. It should be noted in this case that the court did not express any intention of placing the defendant on probation, nor did the court in any manner influence the defendant's determination to enter a plea of guilty. It was solely within the discretion of the trial court to grant or to decline probation. It was likewise within the sound discretion of the court to deny the defendant's motion to permit him to change his plea. Defendant had the burden of establishing by convincing proof or otherwise that the trial court abused its discretion. We SFD Al Smith 3641 So. 6310 000. 00 kryj SFD $15,000 SFD Ave rage Bldg. r, Borineville SFD Ca- Holmes & Jensen 4207 So. King Arthur Dr. $20,000 $50,000.00 Co SFD Ca- Burdett ADparel 3550 So. Holmes Office Ca- $15,000 Van Carter 9790 View $25,000 Don 2936 Ca- SFD $15,000 linden Dr.. 5-7 SFD $17,000 pltf to $44 SAB 65515 9-- SFD Homes 6008 780 S. . Exquisite Exquisite va CHARLOTTE KONTOSHARLET KONTOYA; fore it a presentence report which the record indicates that the court studied very carefully. After a careful consideration, the court concluded that it could not place the defendant on probation and sentenced him to serve a term in the Utah State Prison. $13,000 Homes 5999 -7 9-- Homes 2869 Homes 5964 SAB At the time fixed for the pronouncement of sentence the court had be- 3935 So. $17,000 SFD Coates Bros. 5466 7, ions Cir. $22,000 SFD Coates Bros. 2265 Zions Dr. $17,000 SFD Exquisite aka 1820 E E & Exquisite YA aka J Klungervik 4724 W. $17,000 SFD J Klungervik 4744 W. Homes 5984 9-- 5-7 65514 & Cayenne Dr. JULLEEK DALE JENSEN; 65513 robbery, the court carefully and thoroughly explained to the defendant the consequences of his entering a plea of guilty, and the court was careful in determining that the plea was not entered by reason of any coercion or promises made to the defendant. After the defendant had entered a plea of guilty, the court referred the matter for a presentence investigation. 3935 So. Exquisite ON-T- OY A When the defendant appeared before the court for the purpose of withdrawing his plea of not guilty and entering a plea of guilty to the charge of SFD 9-- 5-7 65468 shop $146,000 Don Black 6945 Bonnie Arlene $15,000 SFD Don Black 6891 Bonnie- Arlene $15,000 SFD Don Black 6898 Bonnie- Arlene $15,000 SFD Don Black 6913 Bonnie- Arlene $17,000 SFD Don Black 3686 Highland St. $17,000 SFD Don Black 6943 Bonnie- Arlene $17,000 SFD J & J Klungervik 4714 W. 3935 So. $16,000 CARETTA IU70 Venco Dr. V ANSON; fabric Redwood Rd. 9-- 5-7 IC Defendant was charged with the crime of robbery in the District Court of Weber County. The defendant was represented by counsel and no claim is made here that defendant's counsel was not diligent in his efforts to assist the defendant. Prior to the entry of a plea by the defendant, there was plea barwas gaining between defense counsel and the prosecutor, and an agreement reached wherein the prosecutor agreed that if the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge pending against him other charges involving the defendant would be dropped. During the investigation a detective of the Ogden of a City Police Department promised the defendant that if he entered plea on probation. guilty the detective would recommend that he be placed W. 6534 IC vs JIM W. WINSTON 2385 Saddle Way; $53 to 6537 TUCKETT, Justice: Inc. 3637 So. 300 Storage equip. $32,000 Suncoast Prop. 4191 So. IC vs RICHARD M. SOKJA HUISH; 6kzk Kalstrom Allan E. Mecham, Clerk Defendant and Appellant. Swaco t 6531 FILED September 12, 1974 Robert James Witbeck, ! 13492 No. v. $8,716.00 Arthur Jaeger 2175 S. 3rd E. Apt. 4 unit 40,000.00 65273 KAD va BRENT R. OLSEN 275 Vine or 36a V. 8th S. $15 to pltf j 65305 KAB va MICHAEL N. fc LYNDA TATAR; 5212 Charlotte The Supreme Court of The State of Utah State Of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, Denver ft Rio Gradne R. R. 700 W. 2600 S. Auto WALTER DAWN Tamarack; 9-5- Zellerbach Corp. 3rd E. Ranodel Office $182, 000. CO 2255 S. pltf 9-- 5-7 fln Crown DES-PA- IN KXDVALE THEATER 5th V. $108 to S MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1974 INTERMOUNT AIN COMMERCIAL RECORD PAGE EIGHT SFD The victim of the robbery was shown a picture of the defendant and then permitted to view him in a hospital, where the victim recognized defendant as being one of the robbers. At the time, no charge had been filed against the defendant, and the officers were merely attempting to ascertain who committed the crime. There was nothing improper about the method used to secure the identification, and the trial court properly refused to suppress the evidence. The defendant called three witnesses who testified to his alibi and then called a deaf mute as a fourth alibi witness. The daughter of the deaf mute had already testified and was called as an interpreter for her mother. Counsel for the State objected on the ground that there was an exclusion rule in effect and the daughter would not be a proper person to act as interpreter. Counsel for defendant, in making a proffer of proof, stated that the testimony would be cumulative. The court sustained the objection and explained his ruling as follows: I will explain to you, because I think you are entitled to have an explanation as to why I am sustaining Mr. Gammon's objection. The interpreter has testified to the same events. I would not wish-tplace a strain on your proposed interpreter's willingness to interpret, particularly on correctly an answer which would conflict with the person who is serving as cross-examinati- o on, interpreter's I (Cont'd, on Pag 9) |