Not For Official Publication

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Tait seeks to appeal his conviction after a guilty plea. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of jurisdiction.

Tait pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. He was subsequently sentenced. Although he now seeks to challenge his plea, he did not file a motion to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing.

Under Utah Code section 77-13-6, a motion to withdraw a guilty plea must be made prior to the announcement of sentence. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-13-6(2)(b) (2008). It is well-settled that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a challenge to a guilty plea absent a timely motion to withdraw the plea. See State v. Merrill, 2005 UT 34, ¶ 20, 114 P.3d 585; State v. Reyes, 2002 UT 13, ¶ 3, 40 P.3d 630. A challenge to a guilty plea is precluded even if the ground asserted is ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 14, 167 P.3d 1046; State v. Briggs, 2006 UT App 448, ¶ 6, 147 P.3d 969 (mem.). Although Tait attempts to recast ineffective assistance as fraud, the essence of his allegation is that it was counsel's fault that he did not timely file a motion to withdraw. In Rhinehart, the supreme court held that the jurisdictional bar applies even where a defendant argues it was counsel's conduct that resulted in failing to file a timely motion. See Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶¶ 12-14. Accordingly, whether that conduct is labeled fraud rather than ineffective assistance is of no import. This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Tait's challenge to the validity of his plea. See id. ¶ 14.

Dismissed.

James Z. Davis, Presiding Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge, Stephen L. Roth, Judge.