STATE v. CERON, 257 P.3d 508 (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of Utah
Number: inutco20110610c15
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Jun. 09, 2011
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION McHUGH, Associate Presiding Judge: 1 The State appeals from the magistrate's pretrial order dismissing with prejudice the refiled information charging defendant Luis Ceron with one count of attempted murder with injury, see Utah Code Ann. 76-5-203(2) (2008), and one count of aggravated kidnapping, see id. 76-5-302. 1 The State argues that the magistrate erred when it dismissed Ceron's case with prejudice based on its conclusion that the prosecutor violated the st
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION McHUGH, Associate Presiding Judge: 1 The State appeals from the magistrate's pretrial order dismissing with prejudice the refiled information charging defendant Luis Ceron with one count of attempted murder with injury, see Utah Code Ann. 76-5-203(2) (2008), and one count of aggravated kidnapping, see id. 76-5-302. 1 The State argues that the magistrate erred when it dismissed Ceron's case with prejudice based on its conclusion that the prosecutor violated the sta..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION
McHUGH, Associate Presiding Judge:
¶ 1 The State appeals from the magistrate's pretrial order dismissing with prejudice the refiled information charging defendant Luis Ceron with one count of attempted murder with injury, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-203(2) (2008), and one count of aggravated kidnapping, see id. § 76-5-302.1 The State argues that the magistrate erred when it dismissed Ceron's case with prejudice based on its conclusion that the prosecutor violated the standards articulated in State v. Brickey, 714 P.2d 644 (Utah 1986).
¶ 2 For the reasons stated in State v. Pacheco-Ortega, 2011 UT App 186, 257 P.3d 498, we reverse.
¶ 3 WE CONCUR: STEPHEN L. ROTH and MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN, Judges.
FootNotes
1. See State v. Pacheco-Ortega, 2011 UT App 186, ¶¶ 2-7, 257 P.3d 498, the case of Ceron's codefendant that was briefed concurrently with this case, for a detailed recitation of the facts relevant to this appeal.
Source: Leagle
