Perez-Llamas v. Utah Court of Appeals
Utah Supreme Court
2005 UT 18, 110 P.3d 706 (2005)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Luis Perez-Llamas (defendant) was arrested after a police officer discovered marijuana hidden in a tire in his vehicle. Perez-Llamas pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. On the day that Perez-Llamas was sentenced to a year in jail, he filed an application for a certificate of probable cause with the state district court. The district court denied the application, and Perez-Llamas appealed to the court of appeals. The Utah government filed a response, and seven days later the court of appeals denied the application. Perez-Llamas filed a petition for extraordinary relief from the Utah Supreme Court, asking the court to order the court of appeals to provide him with a hearing pursuant to Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 27(e). Rule 27(e) provided that if a criminal defendant filed an application for a certificate of probable cause with a court, the court must hold a hearing on the application within 15 days or, if the state opposed the motion, within 10 days of the opposition. Perez-Llamas argued that the court of appeals did not satisfy the hearing requirement stated in Rule 27(e), because it did not give him an opportunity to present an oral argument in favor of his application.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.