Michael J. Wilkins

This case involved the State of Utah petitioning to terminate the parental rights of C.A. to her son S.L. after the child was removed from her custody due to neglect, drug use, and related incidents. The juvenile court found grounds for termination under Utah statutes based on C.A.'s failure to complete service plans for drug treatment, housing, employment, and parenting classes, along with periods of no contact and positive drug tests, and concluded it was in S.L.'s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory grounds and best-interests determination.

family law

In State v. Leleae, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault after an incident in which he and two companions fired shots at a motorist, pursued him in their car, and then beat him. The trial court also imposed an enhanced sentence under Utah's gang enhancement statute. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, voir dire procedures, the exclusion of portions of his police statement under Rule 106, the constitutionality of the enhancement statute, and sentencing under the Shondel doctrine. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the aggravated assault conviction, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible errors in the trial proceedings, but vacated the enhanced sentence and remanded for resentencing because the jury had not been properly instructed on the elements required for the gang enhancement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellants challenging a city administrative order finding them in violation of building code provisions after roofing work. The administrative hearing was not recorded due to equipment failure, so no record existed for the trial court to review the petition. The court held that the city's failure to record the hearing as required by ordinance violated the appellants' procedural due process rights under the city code, warranting remand for a new hearing, but affirmed that no de novo hearing was authorized by the ordinance.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between homeowners Robert and Laura Kurth and contractor Lonetree Services, Inc., whose president Daniel Wiarda signed a mechanics' lien individually after the Kurths withheld final payment and hired a replacement builder due to alleged poor workmanship on their log home. The consolidated lawsuits included claims for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, wrongful lien, and lien foreclosure; a jury awarded the Kurths damages against Lonetree on several claims while dismissing others, and the trial court later awarded the Kurths over $35,000 in attorney fees and costs under Utah's mechanics' lien statute as the prevailing party. The trial court held Wiarda personally liable for the fees because the lien was filed in his individual name, and the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the statute entitled the successful party to fees, that Wiarda's personal execution of the lien made him liable, and that the related claims were sufficiently intertwined to support the award without double recovery. The court rejected Wiarda's arguments that he was the prevailing party or that the fees were unreasonable.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Ronald G. Black seeking to overturn the Utah State Insurance Commissioner's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a default judgment that revoked his title insurance license after the Department initiated proceedings against Black's Title, Inc. and its agents. The court denied relief, holding that the Commissioner acted within his discretion in refusing to set aside the default. Black had received notice of the investigation and proceedings through certified mail and communications from his wife but took no action to respond within the required period or to ensure counsel acted on his behalf. The Commissioner found that Black failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or due diligence, particularly given his awareness of the issues and lack of specific evidence that his health prevented communication or response.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Riggs, the defendant was convicted of three counts of automobile homicide and one count of receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle after driving a stolen truck while intoxicated, attempting to evade police, running a red light, and causing a crash that killed three people. He appealed the trial court's decision to give the jury a flight instruction and its refusal to suppress a statement he made to police at the hospital without Miranda warnings. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the flight instruction was proper because it related to the lesser-included offense of driving under the influence that the jury was also instructed on. The court further held that the statement was admissible because the officer's single question about whether the defendant remembered the accident did not constitute custodial interrogation under Miranda, as it was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

criminal lawprocedure