Utah Supreme Court
Can a motion for new trial be filed before sentencing in Utah criminal cases? State v. Putnik Explained
Summary
Putnik was convicted of drug-related charges and filed a motion for new trial before sentencing. The trial court later denied the motion after sentencing. Putnik filed his notice of appeal within thirty days of the denial of his motion but more than thirty days after sentencing.
Analysis
Background and Facts
George David Putnik was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before sentencing, Putnik filed a motion for arrest of judgment under Rule 23 and, alternatively, a motion for new trial under Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court sentenced Putnik on January 25, 2001, and later denied his pending motions on February 12, 2001. Putnik filed his notice of appeal on March 5, 2001—more than thirty days after sentencing but within thirty days of the denial of his motion for new trial.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Putnik’s notice of appeal was timely filed. Under Rule 4(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, appeals must be filed within thirty days of judgment. However, Rule 4(b) extends this period when a timely motion for new trial is filed under Rule 24, allowing the appeal period to run from the denial of the new trial motion rather than from sentencing.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that Rule 24(c) clearly requires motions for new trial to be filed “within 10 days after imposition of sentence.” Following State v. Vessey, the court determined that motions filed before sentencing are premature and untimely. The court distinguished the civil case Bellion v. Durand, noting it involved different rules and procedures not applicable to criminal cases.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes critical timing requirements for post-conviction motions in Utah criminal cases. Practitioners must wait until after sentencing to file motions for new trial under Rule 24(c) if they wish to extend the appeal period under Rule 4(b). Filing such motions prematurely—even after verdict but before sentencing—renders them ineffective for tolling purposes, requiring appeals to be filed within the standard thirty-day period from sentencing.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Putnik
Citation
2002 UT 122
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20010557
Date Decided
December 20, 2002
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A motion for new trial filed before sentencing is premature and untimely under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c), which requires such motions to be filed within ten days after imposition of sentence.
Standard of Review
Jurisdictional questions are reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
File motions for new trial only after sentencing, not before, to preserve the right to an extended appeal period under Rule 4(b) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.