IN RE M.M. v. STATE, 2002 UT App 147

Case No. 20020157-CAUtah Court of Appeals.
Filed May 2, 2002 (Not For Official Publication)

Appeal from the Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Robert S. Yeates.

Scott L. Wiggins, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.

Mark L. Shurtleff and Carol L.C. Verdoia, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem.

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Orme.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM:

This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion to “summarily affirm the judgment or order which is the subject of review, [because] it plainly appears that no substantial question is presented.” Utah R. App. P. 10(e). This case has previously been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely notice of appeal. See In re M.M., 2000 UT App 95 (per curiam). Appellant now asks this court to review the juvenile court’s order denying the motion to accept the notice of appeal as timely, which the juvenile court construed as a motion for an extension under Rule 4(e) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Rule 4(e) allows the trial court to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal “upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause.” Utah R. App. P. 4(e). “The trial court’s discretion to grant or deny a rule 4(e) motion is very broad.” Reisbeck v. HCA Health Servs. of Utah, 2000 UT 48,¶ 6, 2 P.3d 447. In this case, the juvenile court entered findings that “[c]ounsel for the mother has failed to set forth a basis for either `excusable neglect’ or `good cause’ for extending the time for appeal.” In response to this court’s motion, Appellant’s counsel on appeal concedes that appointed trial counsel did not present any circumstances that would justify a determination of excusable neglect or good cause to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. See id. at ¶ 15 (explaining standards of good cause and excusable neglect). Because Appellant fails to demonstrate any basis for this court to conclude that the juvenile court abused its broad discretion in denying the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, we must affirm.

Accordingly, we grant the sua sponte motion and affirm the juvenile court’s order denying Appellant’s Rule 4(e) motion. No other questions are properly at issue in this appeal. It follows that the State’s motion to strike is moot.

Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge, Russell W. Bench, Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge.