AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual contact of a minor. Following the conviction, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court did not rule on. The Defendant then filed a notice of appeal (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• May 6, 2016: Jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge of criminal sexual contact of a minor.
• May 10, 2016: Defendant was sentenced.
• May 13, 2016: Judgment, sentence, and commitment were filed.
• May 16, 2016: Defendant filed a motion for a new trial.
• May 25, 2016: Defendant filed a supplement to the motion for a new trial.
• June 10, 2016: Defendant filed a notice of appeal.
• February 25, 2019: Motion to allow withdrawal and substitution of counsel was filed by Defendant’s current counsel and denied by the Court.
• April 9, 2019: Court issued an order to show cause.
• April 22, 2019: Defendant filed a pro se response to the order to show cause.
• April 24, 2019: Defendant’s current counsel filed an untimely response to the order to show cause (paras 2-3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court failed to rule on the motion for a new trial and suggested a limited remand to the district court to rule upon the pending motion (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court’s failure to rule on Defendant’s motion for a new trial bars his appeal for lack of finality (para 4).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings (para 8).

Reasons

• Per Briana H. Zamora, J. (Julie J. Vargas, J., and Jennifer L. Attrep, J., concurring): The Court determined that appellate jurisdiction is limited to timely appeals from final judgments or orders. Since the district court did not rule on the Defendant's motion for a new trial, the case lacked the finality required for appellate review. The Court emphasized that neither the filing of a notice of appeal nor the failure of the district court to rule on the motion for a new trial divested the district court of jurisdiction to dispose of the motion. The Court dismissed the appeal due to the lack of a final order and remanded the case to the district court, urging it to expeditiously rule on the Defendant's motion for a new trial (paras 4-7).