Direct Appeal Fourth District, Provo The Honorable Fred D.
Howard No. 120400436
Justice Durrant authored the opinion of the Court, in which
Associate Chief Justice Lee, Justice Durham, Justice Himonas,
and Justice Pearce joined.
Austin Johnson, Orem, pro se appellant
C. Bevis, Salt Lake City, for appellee
Durrant, Chief Justice
1 Petitioner Stacey Austin Johnson appeals from an attorney
discipline order suspending him from the practice of law. We
conclude that we lack jurisdiction because Mr. Johnson failed
to timely appeal the district court's order, which was
final under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58A. We
therefore do not consider his appeal on the merits.
2 Following a formal disciplinary proceeding under rule
14-511 of the Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability
(RLDD), the district court entered its "Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Suspension"
(Order) on June 15, 2015. On that date, rule 58A of the Utah
Rules of Civil Procedure provided that a judgment is
"deemed entered for all purposes" when it is
"signed by the judge and filed with the
clerk." Because the Order was electronically
signed by the district court and was filed with the clerk on
June 15, 2015, it was final and appealable on that date.
3 Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides
that a petition for review must be filed within 30 days from
the entry of an appealable order. Mr. Johnson's petition,
filed 150 days after the district court's Order, was
therefore untimely. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction and do
not consider the merits of Mr. Johnson's appeal.
4 The Office of Professional Conduct (OPC) filed a formal
complaint against Mr. Johnson in district court for alleged
violations of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. After a
two-day bench trial, the court concluded that Mr.
Johnson's conduct violated those rules. The district
court then held a sanctions hearing to hear evidence of
aggravation and mitigation. It later signed and entered its
Order on June 15, 2015.
5 Mr. Johnson took no action until 56 days later, August 10,
2015. On that day, rather than file a notice of appeal or a
petition for review, he filed two motions with the district
court: an "Application for Stay Pending Review" and
a "Motion to Dismiss; or, in the Alternative, Reinstate
Appeal Time." The district court denied both motions in
an order dated October 13, 2015. Mr. Johnson then filed a
petition for review with this court on November 12, 2015,
which was 150 days after the court's June 15, 2015 Order.
6 "Because we lack jurisdiction, we do not review the
decision of the district court and no ...