State v Fairchild

Fairchild appealed his robbery, gun and other convictions arising from the robbery of a gas station arguing his new trial motion should have been granted and that his consecutive sentences were illegal. The panel affirmed. It held that evidence that Fairchild was on parole was erroneously admitted, but, there was no prejudice given testimony from his accomplice, two eyewitnesses of the robbery and another gas station employee who recognize Fairchild’s all of which placed him at the gas station during the robbery voice plus physical evidence including psychedelic mushrooms, firearms and the accomplice’s disguise all of which strongly supports the verdicts in this case as well as the lack of details about why he was on parole and the limited nature of the mentions of his status. The panel upheld the consecutive sentences as Fairchild failed to preserve his argument that the district court did not address statutory factors and regardless of the length of the sentence imposed the parole board has broad discretion to review Fairchild’s sentence at any time.

State v Antonio

Antonio appealed his convictions for violating a protective order arguing his motion for directed verdict should have been granted. The panel affirmed holding testimony that Antonio had been served the order, called victim three times and told the investigating officer that Antonio knew about the order was sufficient to send the case to the jury and to uphold the resulting convictions.

In the Interests of E.R. (W.J.R. v State)

W.J.R. appealed the dismissal of her motion to set aside the guardianship of E.R. the panel affirmed holding the permanent guardianship cannot be set aside under Utah Code 78A-6-1103(3)(b) and if the motion were considered a Rule of Civil Procedure 60 motion, it was properly denied as W.J.R. was present when the evidentiary hearing date was set and she dismissed an appeal of the guardianship order which would have provided her an avenue to claim surprise.