State v. Norris
Decision Date | 12 August 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 20020966-CA.,20020966-CA. |
Citation | 97 P.3d 732,2004 UT App 267 |
Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Richard NORRIS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Jennifer K. Gowans, Fillmore Spencer LLC, Provo, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, and Jeffrey S. Gray, Assistant Attorney General, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before BENCH, Associate P.J., and DAVIS and ORME, JJ.
¶ 1 After entering an unconditional, voluntary guilty plea to three counts of communications fraud, Richard Norris (Defendant) challenges the constitutionality of the underlying statute (the communications fraud statute) on appeal. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1801 (2003).1 We affirm.
¶ 2 Defendant was charged with seven counts of communications fraud and was bound over on all counts. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1801 (2003). After several days of trial, Defendant entered an unconditional, voluntary guilty plea to three counts of third-degree-felony communications fraud. See id. § 76-10-1801(1)(c). After sentencing, and without moving to withdraw his guilty pleas, Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, mounting a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the communications fraud statute on overbreadth and vagueness grounds.
¶ 3 We consider two issues on appeal. First, we must determine whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider Defendant's constitutional challenge after Defendant entered an unconditional, voluntary guilty plea. "The determination of whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review for correctness...." Beaver County v. Qwest, Inc., 2001 UT 81, ¶ 8, 31 P.3d 1147. Second, if this court has jurisdiction, then we must consider whether the communications fraud statute is unconstitutionally overbroad or vague on its face. "Constitutional challenges to statutes present questions of law, which we review for correctness." Provo City Corp. v. Thompson, 2004 UT 14, ¶ 5, 86 P.3d 735. "When addressing such a challenge, this court presumes that the statute is valid, and we resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality." State v. Lopes, 1999 UT 24, ¶ 6, 980 P.2d 191.
¶ 4 "The general rule applicable in criminal proceedings ... is that by pleading guilty, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all of the essential elements of the crime charged and thereby waives all nonjurisdictional defects, including alleged pre-plea constitutional violations." State v. Parsons, 781 P.2d 1275, 1278 (Utah 1989); see also State v. Hardy, 2002 UT App 244, ¶ 13, 54 P.3d 645
. The State asserts that Defendant's facial challenge to the constitutionality of the communications fraud statute falls within the ambit of the "pre-plea constitutional violations" mentioned in Parsons.
781 P.2d at 1278. Therefore, the State argues that because Defendant's challenge is nonjurisdictional in nature, it was waived by his guilty plea. Defendant asserts that "pre-plea constitutional violations," id., encompass violations involving such things as Miranda admonitions and search warrants, and that a facial constitutional challenge to a statute is, at its heart, a jurisdictional issue. Therefore, Defendant argues that his challenge was not waived by his guilty plea.
¶ 5 "Subject matter jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to determine a controversy and without which it cannot proceed." Thompson v. Jackson, 743 P.2d 1230, 1232 (Utah Ct.App.1987) (per curiam). Subject matter jurisdiction James v. Galetka, 965 P.2d 567, 570 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (quotations and citations omitted). When subject matter jurisdiction is an issue, "[i]t is the duty of this court to `satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review.'" EEOC v. Chicago Club, 86 F.3d 1423, 1428 (7th Cir.1996) (quoting Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244, 55 S.Ct. 162, 79 L.Ed. 338 (1934)).2
94 S.Ct. 2098)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pacific Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City
...as a waiver of a facial constitutional challenge to a statute, because such a challenge is jurisdictional in nature." State v. Norris, 97 P.3d 732, 737 (Utah App.2004). The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari in that case to answer the following question: "Whether an unconditional guilty ......
-
People v. Owen
...122 P.3d 1006 ... The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Robert OWEN, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 02CA2369 ... Colorado Court of Appeals, Division IV ... January 13, ... See, e.g., United States v. Johnston, supra; State v. Norris, 97 P.3d 732, ... 736-37 (Utah App.2004); Kitzke v. State, 55 P.3d 696, 699 (Wyo.2002) ... Under the vast weight of authority, the ... ...
-
West Jordan City v. Goodman
...1983). 14. Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120(1) (2002). 15. Id. 16. Id.; State v. Hinson, 966 P.2d 273, 275 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1998). 17. State v. Norris, 2004 UT App 267, ¶ 7 n. 3, 97 P.3d 732, cert. granted, 106 P.3d 743 (Utah Dec. 22, 2004). 18. Taylor, 664 P.2d at 441. 19. Jardine v. Harris, 63 ......
-
Salt Lake City v. Newman
...to proceed with its charge against Newman under an unconstitutional ordinance, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See State v. Norris, 2004 UT App 267, ¶ 7, 97 P.3d 732 ("Because a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute directly cuts to the power and authority of ......