majority">

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Mark K. Smith appeals from his sentence after pleading guilty to various erimes. Smith asserts that the district court erred by relying on Utah Code section 77-13-6(2) to determine the time period in which Smith could file a withdrawal of his plea instead of the time period set forth in Smith's plea statement in support of his guilty plea. We lack jurisdiction to review the issue.

1 2 Smith was charged with various crimes in four separate cases. On March 30, 2006, Smith entered into a global plea deal with the State to resolve all four cases. Smith waived the time for sentencing and, accordingly, was sentenced that day. Smith later filed a letter with the court requesting that he be allowed to withdraw his plea. At the time Smith entered into the plea agreement, Utah Code section 77-13-6(2)(b) stated that "[a] request to withdraw a guilty plea ... shall be made by motion before the sentence is announced." Utah Code Ann. § 77-183-6(2)(b) (2008). 1 However, a provision in Smith's statement in support of his plea stated: "I understand that if I want to withdraw my guilty plea, I must file a written motion to withdraw my plea within 30 days after I have been sentenced and final judgment has been entered."

18 Utah Code section 77-18-62) is jurisdictional. See State v. Tenorio, 2007 UT App 92, ¶ 7, 156 P.3d 854. Accordingly, if a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is not filed prior to sentencing, this court does not have Jurisdiction over a direct appeal to review the validity of the plea. See State v. Merrill, 2005 UT 34, ¶¶ 13-20, 114 P.3d 585; see also Utah Code Ann. § 77-13-6(2)(c) ("Any challenge to a guilty plea not made within the *873 time period specified in Subsection (2)(b) shall be pursued under Title 78B, Chapter 9, Post-Conviction Remedies Act, and Rule 65C, Utah Rules of Civil Procedure."). Therefore, because Smith did not file a motion to withdraw his plea until after his sentence was announced, this court lacks jurisdiction to review Smith's claim and has no choice but to dismiss the appeal. 2 See Merrill, 2005 UT 34, ¶ 20, 114 P.3d 585. If Smith seeks to challenge the timeliness of his request to withdraw his plea, he must do so pursuant to Utah Code section 77-13-6(2)(c).

11 4 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

. The 2008 amendments to the statute merely made a technical change to the rule to reflect the recodification of the Post-Conviction Remedies Act, which is referenced in the statute.

. We express no opinion as to whether we would have jurisdiction to review a due process argument based upon the unique facts in this case because Smith has not raised that issue on appeal.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress