Opinion
Case No. 20060549-CA.
Filed December 14, 2006. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, 991912815, 991913591. The Honorable Paul G. Maughan.
Rocendo R. Borrayo, Arcadia, California, Appellant. Pro Se.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Brett J. Delporto, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges DAVIS, McHUGH, and ORME.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Rocendo R. Borrayo appeals the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider a petition to reduce sentence. We affirm.
On July 26, 2005, the district court denied Borrayo's petition to reduce sentence pursuant to a signed minute entry (the minute entry). On August 23, 2005, Borrayo filed a motion to reconsider this ruling. Borrayo filed a notice of appeal before an order was entered on his motion to reconsider. This court held that the minute entry was a final order, that Borrayo did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry thereof, and that Borrayo's appeal of the minute entry was untimely. See State v. Borrayo, 2006 UT App 84 (mem.) (per curiam). However, this court also held that, to the extent Borrayo appealed the denial of his motion to reconsider, his appeal was premature as the district court had not entered a final order disposing of the motion to reconsider. See id. The district court has now entered a final order denying this motion.
Borrayo sets out two arguments on appeal. Neither argument addresses why this court should consider, let alone reverse, the denial of Borrayo's motion to reconsider. Instead, Borrayo argues that he was provided ineffective assistance at his plea hearing in 1999. As the State notes, this argument is not only irrelevant, but the time for this argument has long since passed. Borrayo's argument would have been appropriate on a direct appeal of his sentence or a timely petition under rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, see Utah R. Civ. P. 65B, rather than a motion for reduction in sentence filed nearly six years after sentencing. Borrayo's only other argument, one sentence in length, suggests that the district court improperly sentenced Borrayo. As set forth above, this court has already held that Borrayo may not directly appeal the denial of his petition to reduce sentence. See Borrayo, 2006 UT App 84.
Affirmed.