OCR Text |
Show Attorney .General seeks opinion i to clarify ruling in Tottle case l ( lliaSTOHIKKSMAin lieionl staff writer A recent Utah Supreme Court decision to hear the appeal of Convicted killer Wesley Allen Tuttle has Confused the Attorney Generals Office, prompting it to ask the justices Monday to clarify their ruling The motion could be the first step by the attorney general in seeking a reversal of the ruling to block Tuttle's appeal. Assistant Attorney General J Stephen Mikita said the high court "may have overlooked or misapprehended misappre-hended certain points of law" when justices ruled they would reinstate Tuttle's appeal. Mikita explained, however, it is impossible to determine upon what the court based its decision because the order came as a simple minute entry Aug. 15. Mikita's motion for clarification asks (he court to issue a full written opinion supporting its decision to reinstate the appeal. He contended the court created confusion by not giving reasons for the reinstatement of Tuttle's appeal. Mikita said the Attorney General's Office did not know whether the justices were overruling a 1982 Supreme Court decision or setting apart capital felons who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. The Utah Supreme Court, as of Jan. 1, 1985, no is longer constitutionally mandated to issue written decisions. A Summit County jury in April 1984 convicted Tuttle of first-degree murder for the stabbing death of Sydney Ann Merrick at the Summit Park offramp on Interstate 80. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, but escaped from the Utah State Prison in August 1984 With Darrel Eugene Brady and Walter Wood. Brady and Wood soon were recaptured, but Tuttle remained at largo almost seven months. During that period Tut I le's "appeal was dismissed by the justices, who coincitlentally cited a 1982 decision stemming from an earlier prison escape by Brady. In that earlier case, the Supreme Court ruled Brady abandoned the appeal of his armed-robbery convic- tion by escaping. Mikita said the minute entry raises broader problems for prosecu-. tors and judges as to whether the Brady precedent was overruled or overlooked. iFurther, Mikita said the Supreme Court's decision to reinstate Tuttle's-appeal Tuttle's-appeal raises the question of whether first-degree murderers sentenced sen-tenced to life imprisonment are entitled to automatic review. Currently, Cur-rently, capital felons sentenced to death receive an automatic review of their conviction and sentence. In the Tuttle case, the Attorney 1 General's Office may be setting thej groundwork for a request for the high court to reverse its decision to hear the appeal. l According to Rule 35 of the UtaH Rules of Appellate Procedure, thejf court must allow 14 days from the time of the ruling to entertain a petition for re-hearing. Implicit irf'J such a petition is a request for the'" high court to reverse itself. But Mikita argued that without a written decision, the state does nof know upon which grounds it coukfj ask the court to reconsider the., ruling. v) "Without a written opinion this, court has effectively stopped the"-state the"-state from petitioning for re-hearing," Mikita said. :h , Mikita noted, however, that; because of the significance of the;, Tuttle ruling, the Supreme Court,, t may decide to hand down a written,' opinion. . o |