West Jordan City v. Goodman

• Decision Date: 28 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 20040944.,20040944.
• Citation: 135 P.3d 874,2006 UT 27
• Parties: WEST JORDAN CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Christopher GOODMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

135 P.3d 874

2006 UT 27

WEST JORDAN CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Christopher GOODMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20040944.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 28, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Roger F. Cutler, Ryan B. Carter, West Jordan, for plaintiff.

Michael N. Martinez, Salt Lake City, and Sarah Lynn Mathews, West Valley City, for defendant.

Kent R. Hart, Salt Lake City, for amicus Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

PARRISH, Justice:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 After the West Jordan Justice Court convicted Christopher Goodman of two misdemeanor charges, Goodman exercised his statutory right to a trial de novo in the district court.¹ There, Goodman raised a constitutional challenge to the statutory scheme authorizing municipal justice courts,² arguing that it violates the separation of powers principles of the Utah Constitution.³ Goodman also argued that municipal court judges are biased and have an impermissible conflict of interest because they are employed and controlled by the municipalities that benefit from the fines they levy. The district court rejected both challenges and convicted Goodman on both charges. Goodman now appeals. While Goodman's arguments are not without superficial appeal, his briefing on the constitutional claim is inadequate, and our review of the record reveals that he failed to offer any probative evidence in support of his conflict of interest claim. We accordingly affirm the convictions entered by the district court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 On December 12, 2002, West Jordan police officer Holly Curtis was "running license plates" on "all cars" in the Jordan Landing Wal-Mart parking lot. This process involves inputting a vehicle's license plate number into a computer database that returns pertinent information about the vehicle (e.g., insurance status, warrants of arrest issued for the registered driver, etc.). Goodman's vehicle was parked in this lot. Curtis ran its license plate number and discovered that it was uninsured. When Goodman left the parking lot and entered a public street, Curtis issued him a citation for operating a vehicle without insurance in violation of Utah Code section 41-12a-302,⁴ a class B misdemeanor.

¶ 3 The citation required that Goodman appear before the West Jordan Justice Court, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the justice court issued a bench warrant for Goodman's arrest and added a class B misdemeanor charge pursuant to Utah Code section 77-7-22⁵ for failure to appear. At a bench trial, Justice Court Judge Ronald Kunz found Goodman guilty on both charges and sentenced him to sixty days in jail, suspended upon payment of a fine totaling $1,170 plus interest.

¶ 4 Goodman appealed his justice court conviction to the Third District Court, where he was entitled to a trial de novo pursuant to Utah Code section 78-5-120.⁶ At trial, Goodman verbally moved to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that the municipal justice court scheme violated the constitutional requirement of separation of powers and that the justice court judge had a pervasive conflict of interest stemming from the alleged power of the city over the justice court.

¶ 5 The district court deferred ruling, requested written briefing on both issues, and scheduled them for further argument. Following argument, the district court denied Goodman's motion to dismiss and found him guilty on both charges. The district court subsequently articulated the basis for its ruling in a carefully reasoned memorandum decision and order. Applying the three-part test we articulated in In re Young⁷ for evaluating constitutional challenges arising from the separation of powers doctrine, the district court rejected Goodman's constitutional claim.

¶ 6 The district court also rejected Goodman's claim that the justice court system constituted a de facto violation of the separation of powers doctrine. It held that Goodman had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that justice court judges have an inherent conflict of interest in every case or that they are biased because of the structural relationships between justice courts and the municipalities that create them.

¶ 7 Goodman appealed. After the briefing was complete, West Jordan moved to dismiss the appeal due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and moved to strike Goodman's briefs or, in the alternative, to strike those portions of the briefs referring to factual matters that were not admitted as evidence in the district court. West Jordan's motion to strike was supported by an affidavit from Paul Barron, a member of the Information Technology Department for the Administrative Office of State Courts, in which Barron testified that the statistical information referenced in Goodman's briefs was inaccurate as a result of a software program glitch.

¶ 8 Goodman opposed both motions and moved to disqualify the Chief Justice from sitting on this appeal. Goodman argued that, as the presiding officer of the Utah Judicial Council, the Chief Justice has supervisory authority over the Administrative Office of State Courts and all of its employees, including Barron. Goodman reasoned that West Jordan's submission of the Barron Affidavit requires the disqualification of the Chief Justice because of an actual, as well as a perceived, conflict of interest. We deferred resolution of West Jordan's motions and indicated our intent to resolve them concurrently with Goodman's appeal.

ANALYSIS

¶ 9 A constitutional challenge to a statute presents a question of law, which we review for correctness.⁸ When considering such a challenge, we presume that the statute is valid and "resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality."⁹ When reviewing factual questions, we uphold the trial court's findings unless they are "clearly erroneous."¹⁰

¶ 10 Before turning to the merits of this appeal, we first determine whether we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear it. We then address Goodman's motion to disqualify the Chief Justice. Concluding that neither of these questions poses an obstacle to our deciding the case, we turn to Goodman's substantive claims and reject them because they are inadequately briefed and lack factual support.

I. THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN APPEAL CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUSTICE COURTS

¶ 11 Our authority to determine the substantive issues presented in this appeal is contingent on whether we have subject matter jurisdiction.¹¹ We therefore begin by addressing West Jordan's argument that neither the district court nor this court has subject matter jurisdiction over Goodman's constitutional challenge to the justice court scheme.

¶ 12 In examining this issue, we start with the basic premise that "[a] court has subject matter jurisdiction if the case is one of the type of cases the court has been empowered to entertain by the constitution or statute from which the court derives its authority."¹² The Utah Constitution gives district courts "appellate jurisdiction as provided by statute,"¹³ and the legislature has enacted a statute giving the district courts jurisdiction over appeals from justice court convictions.¹⁴ Under this statute, a criminal defendant who has been convicted by a justice court is entitled to a trial de novo in the district court.¹⁵ As a part of this de novo review, a defendant is permitted to raise in the district court any relevant defense to the charges, including challenges to the constitutionality of the statutes or ordinances under which he was convicted.¹⁶

¶ 13 Had Goodman lodged a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the statutes under which he was convicted, the jurisdiction of the district court, and hence this court, would be beyond dispute. But Goodman does not challenge the constitutionality of the particular statutes under which he was convicted. Rather, he challenges the validity of the convicting justice court. West Jordan argues that the constitutional validity of the justice court conviction was relevant to neither the de novo trial in the district court nor the operative question of whether the prosecution established the elements necessary to convict Goodman in the district court. West Jordan further argues that Goodman's attempt to challenge the justice court scheme in the context of the appeal of his convictions deprived West Jordan of due process. We find neither argument persuasive.

¶ 14 We recognize the importance of claims involving the constitutionality of statutes or ordinances and the necessity of a forum for raising them.¹⁷ We accordingly construe any restriction on jurisdiction narrowly.¹⁸ When "[t]here is no provision of the Constitution excepting [particular types of cases], nor . . . any law of the state prohibiting jurisdiction of the district court over the subject-matter," we presume that the district court has jurisdiction.¹⁹

¶ 15 West Jordan has failed to identify either a constitutional provision or a statute limiting the district court's jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the validity of a justice court conviction. Indeed, applicable statutes implicitly contemplate such jurisdiction. Utah Code section 78-5-120(7), which governs the jurisdiction of Utah appellate courts over appeals from a district court's review of a justice court conviction, specifically provides that Utah appellate courts may entertain appeals from district court review of justice court proceedings if "the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance."²⁰ This provision suggests that district courts have statutory authority to hear appeals from justice courts that challenge the constitutionality of statutes. And it does not limit such constitutional challenges to those statutes or ordinances defining the express elements of the crime or violation under which a defendant was charged.²¹

¶ 16 There are both express and implied elements of any conviction.²² An implied element of Goodman's...