OCR Text |
Show MONDAY, SEPT. 25, 1972 THE DAILY RECORD PAGE THREE : I In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah 3): This point appears to be moot and we need not canvass it (8), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as here. It is bottomed on Title 1971 Vol. Pocket 6, Supplement, p. 169), which amended, (Replacement provides for an indeterminate sentence of five years to life without eligibility for release until three years are served. The record reveals that the Board of Pardons, whose prerogative is to set dates for parole, pardon, U. C. A. 1953, 3, commutation or termination of sentence under Title exercised such prerogative in this case by setting, not a parole date, but a date for hearing the question of parole or some other disposition of this period, - hence any question of concase, on a date beyond the three-yestitutionality of the section of the act questioned is a matter for determination in some other proper proceeding at some other and appropriate time. As to The State of Utah, 58-13a-- 44 Plaintiff and Respondent, No. 12486 ConnselsVemon B. Romney v FILED September 19, 1972 John Edward Barton, 77-62-- Defendant and Appellant. L. M. Cummings, Clerk counsel: D. Gilbert Athey withdrew T tJCKETT. Justice; ar The defendant was found guilty of the crime of robbery and thereafter sentenced by the court to serve a term in the Utah State Prison. From the conviction and sentence the defendant has appealed. October 31, 1970, the defendant entered a store in Salt Lake he demanded the cash in the cash register from one Patricia where County, an Bennett, employee of the establishment. Another employee and a customer were present at the time of the occurrence. The defendant was apprehended by a bystander and held until the police arrived. The evidence adduced at the trial amply supports the verdict and the sentence. We find no merit in the defendant's contentions on appeal. The decision of the court below is affirmed. On Counsel for the defendant having perfected this appeal, requests permission of the court to withdraw. Counsel's request is granted. David W. Smith, Counsel: v. Plaintiff and Appellant, Harry D. Pugsley No. 12752 FILED Joseph DeNiro and Helen DeNiro, September 19, his wife; Mary Ann DeNiro, in- dividually and as Executrix of the Estate of William DeNiro, Deceased, Defendants Richard 1972 L. M Cummings, Clerk Counsel C. Howe CALLISTER, Chief Justice; Benny Salazar, Jr. Plaintiff and Appellant, Counsel: Legal Defenders Iynn R. Brown v. John W. Turner, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in a quiet title action, wherein the trial court amended the 1findings of fact and decree upon remand from this court in a prior appeal. No. 12803 Clerk L. M. Cummings, review of the record reveals that plaintiff did not present to the trial court for its consideration the issues upon which he predicates error. Further- more, in his proposed amendments to the findings and decree, plaintiff submitted the same provisions which he now challenges. Finally, in the first -appeal before this court, wherein plaintiff was respondent, he did not cross appeal, although the original decree contained one of the same provisions and had the same legal effect, which he currently claims is erroneous. A FILED September 19, 1972 CounseL: Vernon B. Romney Simpson v. General Motors Corporation this court stated: TUCKETT. Justice: In Plaintiff filed a petition in the court below seeking his release from the Utah State Prison. From an adverse decision the plaintiff has appealed to this court. Orderly procedure, whose proper purpose is the final settlement of controversies, requires that a party must present his entire case and his theory or theories of recovery to the trial court; and having done so, he cannot thereafter change to some different theory and thus attempt to keep in of litigation. d motion a of guilty to the crime of August 31, 1966, plaintiff entered a plea of his arraignment the plaintiff burglary in the second degree. At the time a was represented by counsel. After the matter had been referred for in the a investigation the defendant was sentenced to serve term Utah State Prison. . . . On pre-senten- ce November 16, 1971, the plaintiff initiated these proceedings in the district court claiming that he was not represented by competent counsel of the .1 the time he entered a plea of guilty and further, that his knowledge nature the did not fully understand English language was so deficient that he of his arraignment, and that he did not ,.r the proceedings at the time understand the consequences of his plea of guilty. The plaintiff contends . b"re that ho should have been furnished an interpreter so that his communi-Mtions with the court and with counsel would have been facilitated. The of his right plaintiff also makes the further claim that he was not advised to appeal his conviction. On After a trial was had in the court below1 the court found that prior to by counsel and was entering a plea plaintiff was adequately representedcourt further found that fully advised as to his constitutional rights. The was adequate to enable him .he plaintiffs knowledge of the English language and that the plea of to communicate with the court and with his counsel and intelligently. guilty was entered voluntarily, knowingly, would After a careful review of the record we find no errors which below is affirmed. justify reversal. The decision of the court State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, Counsel: Vernon B. Romney David Young, David See Smith v. DeNiro, lii Utah 2d 153, 486 P.2d 1036 (1971); 25 Utah 2d 295, 480 P. 2d 480 (1971). 2. 24 Utah 2d 301, 303, 470 P.2d 399 (1970). Divorces Filed September 19, 1972 - Mary Nogales vs 832 8383 - Linda Wright vs 1 8384 - Debra Nelson vs John Kip Nelson 8385 - Louise Sutton vs 8386 Eugene Virginia Perry vs Perry G. ENJUOD, Justice: Spor testi-n- y of an As to 1): The testimony taken in absence of the jury, was that a as an entrapment uiderr'ovcr agent to determine if there may have been The trial court held i.'l ti r of law sufficient to take the case from the jury. there was not, but informed defendant's counsel that he could examine the not to do "it ness in the presence of the jury if he desired. Counsel chose and it does not lie in the so, whether as a matter of strategy or otherwise, either wittingly or unwittingly loulh r f defendant now to claim error having invited it. objected to defendant's appearance in prison garb. out and On the contrary, his counsel explained such circumstance, pointing detained on an alleged parole violation. We stipulating that the accused was As to 2): No one see no error here. Blaln vs - Charlene Curtis McArth- Wayne LeGrand McArthur - Wanda M. Lombardi Clifford E. Lombardi Thomivsnu'1. M. Vied vs Shlzue S. Vied ' 8398 - Mary K Browning vs A. Robert Browning 8399 - Lee Clark Gonzales vs Pete Gonzales Visser vs 7428 - Patricia Jeanne Bell vs Ralph Clifton Bell 7444 vs - Barbara J. Wllkerson Bill C. Wllkerson - Helen Williams vs 8058 - Evelyn Peysar Williams vs R. Eugene Williams - Diane Merlene Stakebake vs Jackie Rae Stakebake 8202 Marriage Licenses Timothy Peter Bennett 160 E. Helm Ave (21) .to Patricia Jean Marty 6877 So. 1950 E. (19) Dowen Lynn Newby 677 8396 - Sarah Ann Ehrler vs Joseph L. Ehrler - Lawrence 6690 - Judy L. Paul T. Visser vs 8395 - Adrienne Pandora Touart Thompson va William Carter 8397 7190 - Lynn Edward Adams va Gay Darlene Adams Gregory L. Williams Terry Lynn Lindgren vs Elizabeth A.' Lindgren 8393 - Arley K. Lutterman vs Byron E. Lutterman, Jr. 8394 7173 - Patricia P. Gamble vs James A. Gamble 8304 8392 - Affirmed. i 6879 - William Nye vs Verda Maxine Nye 7132 - Tommy Ray Dolph vs Deanna Marilyn Dolph 8387 - Charlene May Mousley vs Reed Arlln Mousley 8391 Defendant says it was error: 1) For the trial court to receive at court in in the absence of the jury; 2) to permit him to appear sentence was unconstitutional. prison attire; and that 3) his , Rich- ard Sutton Arthur Dale Blain T of a narcotic. Appeal from a conviction for sale Cliff- ord Wright ur vs 1 - Susan M. Pendleton vs Lothalr William Pendleton 7305 Elidio Nogales 8390 - Norma H. ai r, DHendant and Appellant. Counsel: Hyrna Mae Nebeker ,) it. .y Oh s Divorces Granted 8389 - Khuu Thi Nguyet Taylor vs Maurice Earl Taylor FILED Costs are awarded to 1. ard No. 12551 Irvin The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. defendants. 8388 - Carolyn L. Spor vs Rich- a Th merry-go-roun- Oakley St. (24) to Deborah Lynn Darling 10534 S. Carnation Dr. Sandy. (19) Dale Stewart Sargent 3920 So 1380 E. (22) to Dixie M. Eller man 6279 So. 1280 E.(23) Rafael Angel Rivera 1417 E.lst So. (24) to Paula Dianne 1431 E. 1st So. (20) Bush-ne- ll . |