author: THORNE, Judge:

text:
    2002 UT App 191
    DAVIS COUNTY, a body politic of the State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Trustee of the Max Kerr Trust dated November 26, 1996; and Intervenors Todd B. Jones and Paul E. Barker, Defendants and Ap-pellees.
    No. 20000962-CA.
    Court of Appeals of Utah.
    May 31, 2002.

      Robert S. Campbell, Vancott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, and Chris R. Hogle, Berman, Gaufin, Tomsic, Savage & Campbel, Salt Lake City, and Gerald E. Hess, Davis County Attorney, Farmington, for Appellant.
    David R. Olsen, Paul M. Simmons, Douglas H. Patton, Dewsnup, King & Olsen, Salt Lake City, for Appellees.
    Before Judges BENCH, DAVIS, and THORNE.
   OPINION

THORNE, Judge:

¶ 1 Appellant Davis County appeals from a judgment establishing the market value of property in a condemnation proceeding. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 “ ‘In reviewing a jury verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to it, and recite the facts accordingly.’ ” Holmstrom v. C.R. England, Inc., 2000 UT App 239, ¶2, 8 P.3d 281 (quoting Ortiz v. Geneva Rock Prods., Inc., 939 P.2d 1213, 1215 (Utah Ct.App.1997)).

¶'3 In 1991, Max Kerr (Kerr) purchased 14.75 acres of vacant land (the Property) in Farmington City, Utah, north of the Interstate 15 and State Highway 89 junction. The Property was described as “flat, undeveloped meadows with some wetlands.” Farmington City zoned the Property “BP,” which allows for commercial development, including light industrial and residential uses.

¶4 In January of 1997, Kerr transferred title to the Property to Zions First National Bank (Zions). Zions held the Property in trust and served as trustee for the Max Kerr Trust. In May 1997, Tod Jones and Paul Barker (Jones and Barker) entered into a Real Estate Purchase Agreement (the Agreement) to buy the Property for $531,000. As part of the Agreement, Jones and Barker put up $1,000 in earnest money. The terms of the Agreement provided that they could purchase the Property until May 23,1998.

¶ 5 In October 1996, Prows, Becknell & Alies, LLC, (PBA), a developer, entered into a Master Development Agreement (Development Agreement) with Farmington City to develop 124 acres of land adjacent to the Property. The Development Agreement and subsequent Wetlands Agreement provided that PBA would mitigate its wetlands both by acquiring land and conveying it to Davis County as well as funding Davis County’s acquisition of land, which included the Property. Davis County was to use these lands for a flood retention basin.

¶ 6 On June 24, 1997, Richard Prows (Prows), PBA’s manager, became aware that Jones and Barker “apparently ha[d] a contract to purchase” the Property. Shortly thereafter, on June 30, 1997, Prows was informed that “KERR may be playing games w[ith] Jones and Barker and that the County should possibly get condemnation proceedings under way.”

¶ 7 On July 28, 1997, Davis County authorized the condemnation of the Property for a “public flood improvement” project. On August 29, 1997, Davis County filed a condemnation action to acquire the Property, naming only Zions, as trustee of the Max Kerr Trust, as a defendant. A hearing on immediate occupancy was scheduled for October 21, 1997. On that day, prior to the hearing, Jones and Barker informed counsel for Davis County in writing that they had an interest in the Property.

¶ 8 Davis County did not respond to Jones and Barker’s written notice of interest until January 12, 1998, when Davis County informed the two that they would not be joined as parties to the action and advised them to seek legal counsel. Subsequently, Jones and Barker filed a motion to intervene, which the trial court granted on August 13, 1998. Following multiple hearings, the trial court amended the date for assessing the valuation of the Property from September 3, 1997, the date Davis County served its complaint upon Zions, to August 13, 1998, the date in which the trial court granted Jones and Barker’s motion to intervene.

¶ 9 The matter proceeded to trial on March 6, 2000. At trial, both parties presented evidence to the jury seeking to establish the fair market value of the Property. Davis County’s expert witness testified that the “highest and best use” of the Property was for “low density residential and urban pasture,” and therefore appraised the Property at $145,000. Defendants’ (collectively Zions, Jones and Barker) expert witness testified that the “highest and best use” of the Property was “commercial development, likely in the form of office development, as warranted by demand,” and therefore, appraised the Property at $1,606,500. In reaching that market value, Defendants’ expert “compared] [five] similar parcels that ha[d] recently sold in the open market.”

¶ 10 The jury returned a verdict finding that the market value of the Property was $1,606,500. The trial court then awarded Defendants interest on that sum beginning October 31, 1997, the date of the original order of occupancy. The interest totaled $281,498.30. On May 12, 2000, Davis County filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. On September 1, 2000, Davis County filed a motion for leave to file an affidavit of Davis County’s deputy county attorney in support of its motion for a new trial. Later, Davis County filed a motion to reconsider its motion for a new trial. The trial court denied both motions. Davis County appeals.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 11 First, Davis County argues the trial court erred by ruling that the statutory valuation date for the Property was August 13, 1998. Davis County’s claim presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we review under a correction-of-error standard. See Sorenson v. Oram, 2001 UT App 354, ¶ 6, 36 P.3d 528.

¶ 12 Second, Davis County argues the trial court erred by admitting into evidence (1) Defendants’ appraisal of the Property, and (2) that PBA would pay the amount of the condemnation award. “When reviewing a trial court’s decision to admit evidence we seek to determine whether the trial court exceeded its permitted range of discretion.” Eggett v. Wasatch Energy Corp., 2001 UT App 226, ¶ 16, 29 P.3d 668.

¶ 13 Third, Davis County argues the trial court erred by calculating the prejudgment interest from October 31, 1997, the date of the court’s first order of immediate occupancy. This claim presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness. See Sorenson, 2001 UT App 354 at ¶ 6, 36 P.3d 528.

¶ 14 Finally, Davis County argues the trial court erred by denying its motion for leave to file an affidavit supporting Davis County’s motion for a new trial. We review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. See Hart v. Salt Lake County Comm’n, 945 P.2d 125, 135 (Utah Ct.App.1997).

ANALYSIS

I. Valuation Date

¶ 15 Davis County argues the trial court erred by concluding that the value assessment date for the Property was August 13, 1998. Davis County contends that the value assessment date should have been September 3, 1997, the date Davis County served its complaint upon Zions.

¶ 16 Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-6 (1996), sets forth the pleading requirements for a complaint in a condemnation proceeding. Subsection (2) requires that “the names of all owners and claimants of the property, if known ... must be styled as defendants.” Id. Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-11 (1996) sets the value assessment date for the property sought to be taken. In pertinent part, section 78-34-11 states: “For the purpose of assessing compensation and damages, the right thereto shall be deemed to have accrued at the date of the service of summons, and its actual value at that date shall be the measure of compensation for all property to be actually taken_” Id. (emphasis added).

¶ 17 Initially, we note that the rules of statutory construction require us to look “ ‘first to the plain language of the statute ... and [to] assume[ ] that each term was used advisedly by the Legislature.’ ” Homeside Lending, Inc. v. Miller, 2001 UT App 247, ¶25, 31 P.3d 607 (quoting Biddle v. Washington Terrace City, 1999 UT 110, ¶ 14, 993 P.2d 875). Further, we interpret the “terms of a statute ... as a comprehensive whole and not in piecemeal fashion.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).

¶ 18 In the present matter, a plain language reading of section 78-34-6 clearly states that the complaint “must” name as defendants the “claimants of the property, if known.” Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-6(2). Black’s Law Dictionary defines claimant as “[o]ne who claims or asserts a right, demand or claim.” Black’s Law Dictionary 247 (6th ed.1990). Jones and Barker, pursuant to the Agreement, had a right to purchase the Property, and therefore, were claimants under section 78-34-6(2). Further, the trial court was presented with evidence establishing that Davis County knew of Jones and Barker’s interest in the Property prior to filing its complaint.. Moreover, Davis County was certainly aware of Jones and Barker’s interest before the trial court entered its first order of immediate occupancy. Accordingly, pursuant to section 78-34-6(2), Davis County was required to name Jones and Barker as defendants in the condemnation action.

¶ 19 Davis County served its complaint upon Zions on September 3, 1997, which the trial court initially set as the value assessment date for the Property. However, Jones and Barker were not named as defendants in the condemnation action until August 13, 1998, when the trial court granted Jones and Barker’s motion to intervene. Therefore, on that date, they became parties to the action.

¶20 Section 78-34-11 “deem[s]” the date for assessing the valuation of property acquired in a condemnation proceeding as “the date of the service of summons.” Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-11. Here, service upon Zions was ineffective to satisfy section 78-34-11, because Davis County failed to name, and subsequently serve, Jones and Barker, known claimants to the Property. We conclude that Davis County’s complaint became perfected, under section 78-34-6(2), and service was perfected, under section 78-34-11, when the trial court granted Jones and Barker’s motion to intervene. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by concluding that the proper date for assessing the value of the Property was August 13, 1998, the date of the intervention.

II. The Trial Court’s Admission of Evidence

¶21 Davis County argues the trial court erred by admitting into evidence (1) Defendants’ appraisal of the Property, and (2) that PBA was going to pay the condemnation award for the Property. As we stated above, a trial court has broad discretion in either admitting or excluding evidence at trial. See Eggett v. Wasatch Energy Corp., 2001 UT App 226, ¶ 16, 29 P.3d 668.

A. Defendants’ Appraisal

¶ 22 Davis County argues that Defendants’ appraisal, estimating the Property’s value at $1,606,500, relied upon “three separate property transactions whose value were clearly and admittedly enhanced by the public project for which Davis County had condemned the ... Property.” It is well-settled that “in condemnation proceedings any enhancement ... in value attributable to the purpose for which the property is being condemned shall be excluded in determining the fair market value of the property.” Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City v. Grutter, 734 P.2d 434, 436 (Utah 1986). Further, to establish fair market value using comparable sales, the properties must be “ ‘sufficiently similar in character, location, and other factors which would influence value, ... [to] meet the test of “reasonable comparability” so they can reasonably be regarded as having probative value as to worth of the property in question.’ ” Salt Lake City Corp. v. Utah Wool Pulling Co., 566 P.2d 1240, 1243 (Utah 1977) (quoting State Road Comm’n v. Larkin, 27 Utah 2d 295, 299, 495 P.2d 817, 820 (1972)).

¶ 23 In the present matter, the trial court was presented with arguments from both parties with regard to Defendants’ appraisal. Defendants argued that the three pieces of property in question were similar in character and location. The record supports this conclusion. Defendants also argued that Davis County sought to acquire the Property solely for a flood retention basin, and therefore, any enhancement in value of the properties relied upon by Defendants’ appraiser would have to stem from the flood retention project to be excluded. Indeed, Defendants point out that Davis County’s counsel specifically stated at trial that

Davis County acquired th[e][P]roperty for a flood retention basin. We did not acquire it for open space. We did not acquire it as a wetland preserve. We did not acquire it so that a trail could go around this area. We did not acquire it to develop it. We acquired it strictly for the sole purpose of constructing a flood retention basin.

¶24 First, the jury may have relied for any enhancement in value to the adjacent parcels on the PBA development, which included commercial and residential developments, as well as open space, walking trails, and wetlands, or simply relied upon economic development in the Farmington City area. Second, the other two parcels of land that were not adjacent to the Property had similar physical characteristics and sold for approximately the same price as those in question. As such, it is difficult to conclude that any enhancement in value to those parcels of land, to the extent one exists, must be the result of the flood retention basin slated for the Property. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not exceed its discretion by allowing Defendants’ appraisal into evidence.

B. PBA Paying the Condemnation Award

¶ 25 Davis County argues the trial court erred by allowing Defendants’ counsel to inform the jury that PBA would be paying the condemnation award on the Property. We disagree.

¶ 26 Our review of the record suggests that the trial court did not exceed its discretion by allowing that information to be considered at trial. Moreover, to the extent that it was brought to the jury’s attention, Davis County opened the door. During opening statements, Davis County’s counsel told the jury that “[n]ow Davis County being the prudent manager of the County’s tax money has, has gone together, or excuse me, recognizing the benefit of managing the tax dollars,” which prompted an objection by Defendants’ counsel. Defendants’ counsel argued that “[Davis County] [is] not paying for this property, the developer is and I believe that’s a totally improper argument.” Davis County raised the issue of the source of the funds for the project and Defendants were entitled to respond.

¶27 In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing into evidence either Defendants’ appraisal or information that PBA was to pay the condemnation award.

III. Davis County’s Counsel’s Affidavit in Support of its Motion for a New Trial

¶28 Davis County argues the trial court erred by denying its motion for leave to file an affidavit in support of its motion for a new trial. Rule 59(c) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[w]henever a motion for a new trial is based upon affidavits they shall be served with the motion.” Id. (emphasis added).

¶29 Here, Davis County filed its motion for a new trial on May 12, 2000. Nearly four months later, on September 1, 2000, Davis County sought leave to file the affidavit of its deputy county attorney seeking “an opportunity to set the record straight.” Rule 59 requires that such an affidavit be filed with the motion. Further, the trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting or denying a motion for a new trial. Davis County has not demonstrated that the trial court exceeded its discretion, and we therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Davis County’s motion.

IV. Prejudgment Interest

¶30 Finally, Davis County argues the trial court erred by deciding that prejudgment interest began to accrue on October 31,1997, the date of the trial court’s first order of immediate occupancy. We agree.

¶ 31 Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-9(5)(c)(i) (Supp.2000) states that

judgment shall include, as part of the just compensation awarded, interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount finally awarded as the value of the property ..., from the date of taking actual possession of the property by the plaintiff or from the date of the order of occupancy, whichever is earlier, to the date of the judgment.

Id. The trial court’s first order of occupancy was ineffective because, as we have stated above with regard to notice and the establishment of the assessment valuation date of the Property, Jones and Barker had yet to be named as defendants in the condemnation action despite their known interest in the Property.

¶ 32 On April 13, 1998, after the trial court permitted Jones and Barker to intervene in the action and become named defendants, the trial court granted a stipulated order of immediate occupancy. Accordingly, the proper “date of the order of occupancy” is April 13, 1998, the order date in which all parties to the action were named. Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-9(5)(c)(i). Our decision leaves open the factual question as to whether Davis County took actual possession of the Property prior to that date. We therefore remand to the trial court to determine whether Davis County took actual possession of the Property prior to April 13, 1998. The trial court should then allow prejudgment interest from the earlier of the two dates.

CONCLUSION

¶ 33 We conclude that the trial court did not err by concluding that August 13, 1998, was the value assessment date for the Property. Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-6 clearly states that the complaint “must” name as defendants the “claimants of the property, if known.” Davis County was aware that Jones and Barker had an interest in the Property prior to filing its complaint, yet failed to name them. Accordingly, service and notice were complete upon the trial court’s order granting Jones and Barker’s motion to intervene. Therefore, August 13, 1998 was the “date of the service of summons” and the value assessment date for the Property. Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-11.

¶ 34 Next, we conclude that the trial court did not exceed its discretion in allowing into evidence (1) Defendants’ appraisal, or (2) the fact that PBA was to pay the condemnation award for the Property. We also conclude that the trial court did not exceed its discretion by denying Davis County’s motion for leave to file an affidavit in support of its motion for a new trial because the affidavit was untimely.

¶35 Finally, we reverse the trial court’s decision establishing October 31, 1997, as the date upon which prejudgment interest began to accrue. We remand to the trial court for a determination of whether Davis County took actual possession of the Property prior to April 13, 1999, the date of the effective order of occupancy. Following that determination, the trial court shall set the date upon which prejudgment interest accrues, April 13, 1999, unless the trial court determines that Davis County took actual possession of the Property prior to that date.

¶ 36 WE CONCUR: RUSSELL W. BENCH, Judge, and JAMES Z. DAVIS, Judge.

      . Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-11 (1996), states, in pertinent part, that "[f]or the purpose of assessing compensation and damages, the right thereto shall be deemed to have accrued at the date of the service of summons.” Id.

      . Following the order granting Jones and Barker's motion to intervene, the parties stipulated to March 8, 1998, as the date that Davis County was to take immediate occupancy of the Property-

      . The American Heritage College Dictionary defines claimant as "[a] party that malees a claim." The American Heritage College Dictionary 257 (3d ed.1997). Claim is defined as "[a] basis for demanding something; a title or right.” Id.

      . In addition to the three parcels at issue, Defendants' expert also relied upon two other parcels to establish the fair market value of the Property.

      . Davis County also argues that Defendants' counsel made repeated references to the Wetlands Agreement that contained the terms which required PBA to pay for the condemnation award.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: THORNE, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    2002 UT App 189
    Ranae NEELY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Steven E. BENNETT, Defendant and Appellee.
    No. 20000851-CA.
    Court of Appeals of Utah.
    May 31, 2002.

      George Waddoups and Nancy A. Mismash, Debry & Associates, Murray, for Appellant.
    Karra J. Porter, Christensen & Jensen PC, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
    Before Judges JACKSON, ORME, and THORNE.
   OPINION

THORNE, Judge.

¶ 1 Appellant Ranae Neely appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motions for a directed verdict and for additur or a new trial. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 “On appeal, we review the record facts in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and recite the facts accordingly.” State v. Brown, 948 P.2d 337, 339 (Utah 1997).

¶ 3 In May 1996, while waiting in his Ford Escort for a traffic light to change from red to green, Stephen Bennett’s foot slipped from the clutch causing his car to lurch forward and strike the rear of Neely’s Ford Ranger at an approximate speed of 5 miles per hour. Both Bennett and Neely got out of their respective vehicles and inspected the damage. Bennett’s car had a small dent on the right front bumper and Neely’s truck suffered a small amount of damage to its rear bumper. The estimated cost to repair both vehicles was later determined to be $200. After the accident, and without repairing the minor damage to the rear bumper, Neely decided to store her truck in her garage, chiefly to preserve the truck as evidence of her claim.

¶ 4 While neither Bennett nor his children, who were his passengers in the Escort, suffered any ill effect from the accident, Neely’s husband took her directly from the accident site to a local hospital emergency room. There, approximately two hours after the accident, Neely reported that she had not struck her head, but that she had a mild headache. After conducting an examination, the emergency room physician noted Neely’s headache on her chart as well as noting that she had tenderness in her neck and upper back. The doctor then released Neely.

¶ 5 The next day, Neely informed her supervisor that she had been in a minor accident and that while she was upset by the incident she was otherwise okay. A few days after that conversation, Neely showed up at work wearing a neck brace and complaining of neck pain. Later, however, Neely’s supervisor drove by Neely’s home and noticed Neely outside without the neck brace. Approximately one week after the appearance of the neck brace, Neely approached her supervisor and told her that something was wrong with her brain and that surgery was possibly the only treatment. Then, after another week, Neely told the supervisor that something was wrong with her jaw. Three more weeks passed before Neely arrived at work with a previously nonexistent stuttering problem.

¶ 6 By April of 1997, Neely attributed several conditions to the May 1996 accident, including: chronic headaches, head pain, jaw pain, tinnitis, vision problems, neck pain, back pain, shoulder pain, stuttering, forgetfulness, lightheadedness, anxiety, dizziness, and depression. She further claimed that these conditions resulted in chronic severe pain and nightmares.

¶ 7 Therefore, Neely filed suit seeking nearly $100,000 in damages from Bennett. The suit proceeded to trial where Neely presented several witnesses, including many of her treating physicians and an accident re-construetionist, all of whom Bennett’s counsel thoroughly cross-examined.

¶ 8 Through the process of cross-examination, Bennett’s counsel was able to reveal, inter alia, the following information to the jury: Neely was involved in a similar, low speed, rear-end collision in 1992, which resulted in medical complaints strikingly similar to the complaints Neely alleged as a result of her accident with Bennett; Neely’s truck weighed close to 1000 pounds more than Bennett’s car; Neely initially reported that she had not struck her head, that her only complaint was a mild headache, and that her initial examination noted only mild tenderness in her upper back and neck. Moreover, Bennett’s counsel was able to highlight the evolution of Neely’s story, information that cast substantial doubt on Neely’s credibility.

¶ 9 Following the presentation of the evidence, Neely moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied, and the case was submitted to the jury. After the jury returned a unanimous verdict awarding Neely $2,902 in past special damages, $1,000 in general damages, and $0 in future special damages, Neely filed a motion for additur or new trial. This motion was also denied. Neely now appeals.

ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 10 Neely first argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict. She next argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for additur or new trial. We review both claims to determine whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of its discretion. See Brewer v. Denver & Rio Grande W.R.R., 2001 UT 77, ¶ 33, 31 P.3d 557 (‘We reverse [a trial court’s denial of a motion for a directed verdict] only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.” (quotations and citation omitted)); Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 805 (Utah 1991) (“In reviewing the judge’s ultimate decision to grant or deny a new trial,-we will reverse only if there is no reasonable basis for the decision.” (footnote omitted)).

ANALYSIS

¶ 11 When an appellant challenges a trial court’s ruling concerning either a motion for a directed verdict, or a motion for additur or new trial, the appellant is obligated to first “marshal the evidence in support of the verdict and then demonstrate that the evidence is insufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Brewer, 2001 UT 77 at ¶ 33, 31 P.3d 557 (quotations and citation omitted); see also Crookston, 817 P.2d at 799 (“To demonstrate that the evidence is insufficient [in the context of reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial] to support the jury verdict, the one challenging the verdict must marshal the evidence in support of the verdict and then demonstrate that the evidence is insufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.”).

The marshaling process is not unlike becoming the devil’s advocate. Counsel must remove himself or herself from the client’s shoes and fully assume the adversary’s position. In order to properly discharge the duty of marshaling the evidence, the challenger must present, in comprehensive and fastidious order, every scrap of competent evidence introduced at trial which supports the very findings the appellant resists. After constructing this magnificent array of supporting evidence, the challenger must ferret out a fatal flaw in the evidence. The gravity of this flaw must be sufficient to convince the appellate court that the court’s finding resting upon the evidence is clearly erroneous.

West Valley City v. Majestic Inv., Co., 818 P.2d 1311, 1315 (Utah Ct.App.1991). This duty is not satisfied by merely making the “pertinent excerpts from the record readily available to a reviewing court,” id., nor by presenting “in minute detail all the evidence before” the trial court. Heinecke v. Department of Commerce, 810 P.2d 459, 464 (Utah Ct.App.1991). In the face of an appellant’s failure to properly marshal the evidence, our most likely action is summary affirmance of the challenged trial court decision. See, e.g., Crookston, 817 P.2d at 800.

¶ 12 After reviewing Neely’s brief, while noting that she has presented an extensive array of facts encompassing some 68 pages and 284 numbered paragraphs, we conclude that she has failed in her duty to marshal. Rather, she has focused her efforts solely on rearguing the evidence presented at trial that was favorable to her position. Mueh like the appellants in both Heinecke and Majestic, Neely seems to have misunderstood the nature of her marshaling duty. Had she carefully reviewed our marshaling case law, she would have discovered that an exhaustive or voluminous recitation of all the facts presented at trial, even if this recitation includes within its body the facts that support the challenged ruling, is not what is expected. The marshaled facts should “correlate particular items of evidence with the challenged findings,” Majestic, 818 P.2d at 1315, supporting the findings with all available evidence in the record, and only then should an appellant attempt to demonstrate how the challenged findings are clearly erroneous. Neely has failed to carry this burden. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Neely’s motions for directed verdict and for additur or new trial.

¶ 13 Moreover, were we to address the merits of Neely’s arguments on appeal, the result would remain unchanged. Neely first argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict. Specifically, Neely asserts that because Bennett failed to counter the testimony of her medical experts with expert testimony of his own, she successfully established causation as a matter of law. However, causation is a question of fact and jurors are empowered to weigh expert testimony as they deem appropriate. See, e.g., Dixon v. Stewart, 658 P.2d 591, 597 (Utah 1982) (“No matter how arcane the subject matter or how erudite the witness, the jury is not required to accept [an] expert’s testimony as conclusive. The jurors may give such testimony any weight they choose, including no weight at all.”); cf. Mahmood v. Ross, 1999 UT 104, ¶ 22, 990 P.2d 933; Nay v. General Motors Corp., 850 P.2d 1260, 1264 (Utah 1993) (“causation issues are factual issues that generally cannot be resolved as a matter of law”). Thus, Neely’s argument concerning the legal effect of Bennett’s choice to forego presenting medical expert testimony to counter Neely’s experts is not well taken.

¶ 14 Moreover, we will reverse a trial court’s denial of a motion for a directed verdict “ ‘only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.’ ” Brewer, 2001 UT 77 at ¶ 33, 31 P.3d 557 (citation omitted). So long as we conclude that reasonable minds could disagree “ ‘ “with the ground asserted for directing a verdict,” ’ ” Mahmood, 1999 UT 104 at ¶ 16, 990 P.2d 933 (citations omitted), we will affirm the trial court’s decision.

¶ 15 Here, while Bennett chose not to call any medical expert witnesses of his own, his trial counsel fully cross-examined Neely’s experts, effectively raising doubt concerning the cause, nature, and extent of Neely’s injuries. Additionally, Bennett presented the jury with direct evidence concerning the evolution of Neely’s injury claims from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that the accident was not the cause of her condition. This evidence included the following information: Bennett’s car was moving no faster than five miles per hour at the time of impact; the total combined damages to both automobiles resulting from the accident amounted to $200; Neely told the treating emergency room physician approximately two hours after the accident that she had not struck her head during the accident, and that her sole complaint from the accident was a mild headache coupled with slight distress and tenderness in her neck and upper back. This evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, Neely’s argument is without merit.

¶ 16 Neely’s second argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying her motion for additur or new trial. “A trial court cannot grant a new trial if there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict for either party and the judge merely disagrees with the judgment of the jury.” Crookston, 817 P.2d at 799 n. 9 (emphasis added). Moreover, on appeal we will not “ ‘substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder unless the evidence compels a finding that reasonable men and women would, of necessity, come to a different conclusion.’ ” Onyeabor v. Pro Roofing, Inc., 787 P.2d 525, 530 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). After examining the record, we conclude that the record is replete with evidence sufficient to support the jury verdict. Therefore, Neely’s second argument is also without merit.

¶ 17 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Neely’s motions for directed verdict and for additur or new trial.

WE CONCUR: NORMAN H. JACKSON, Presiding Judge, and GREGORY K. ORME, Judge.

      . Simply stated, we do not want an exhaustive review of all of the evidence presented at trial. Rather, we want a precisely focused summary of all the evidence that supports any finding that is challenged on the ground that it is clearly erroneous.


author: JACKSON, Presiding Judge:

text:
    2002 UT App 214
    STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Marie S. McKINNON, Defendant and Appellee.
    No. 20010790-CA.
    Court of Appeals of Utah.
    June 20, 2002.

      Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Christopher D. Ballard, and Colin R. Winchester, Assistant Attorneys General, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
    Robert R. Wallace and Lisa Watts Baskin, Plant Wallace Christensen & Kanell, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
    Before Judges JACKSON, GREENWOOD, and ORME.
   OPINION

JACKSON, Presiding Judge:

¶ 1 The State appeals the district court’s dismissal of a charge of false notarial certification, under Utah Code Ann. §§ 46-1-9, -18 (1998). We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 The State charged Defendant Marie S. McKinnon with false notarial misconduct on April 16, 2001, less than one month after the statute of limitations to prosecute the offense had expired and over nine months after it discovered the offense. Nevertheless, the State sought to prosecute McKinnon by attempting to invoke Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-303 (1999) (Extension Statute), which extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting, inter alia, fraud under certain circumstances. The district court dismissed the charge, concluding that the State could not pursue its action against McKinnon because it discovered the offense prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The State appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶3 The State challenges the district court’s interpretation of the Extension Statute. Specifically, the State argues the trial court erred in concluding that the Extension Statute allows Utah discretion to require that the State “discover the offense after the expiration of’ Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-302 (1999) (Limitation Period) before the Extension Statute may be invoked. Thus, we are presented with a question of statutory interpretation, which “is a legal conclusion to be reviewed for correctness.” State v. Lusk, 2001 UT 102, ¶ 11, 37 P.3d 1103.

ANALYSIS

¶4 The Extension Statute provides, in relevant part,

(1) If the period prescribed in Section 76-1-302 has expired, a prosecution may be commenced for any offense a material element of which is ... fraud ... within one year after discovery of the offense....
(2) Subsection (1) may not extend the period of limitation as provided in Section 76-1-302 by more than three years.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-303. McKinnon argued below that the introductory phrase “If the period prescribed ... has expired,” id., is meaningless unless “it means that the [Extension Statute] applies only if the State first learns of the offense after the statute of limitations has run.” (Emphasis added.) However, because the district court could “conceive of one other circumstance where the phrase would have meaning,” it declined to conclude that the Extension Statute, “by its own terms, require[s] the State to discover the offense after the expiration of’ the two-year Limitation Period. Nevertheless, the court concluded that it had discretion to judicially impose a “similar requirement” that, for the Extension Statute to be invoked, the State must have “discovered] the offense after the expiration of’ the Limitation Period. The district court relied on dicta from O’Neal v. Division of Family Services, 821 P.2d 1139, 1144 (Utah 1991), to reach its conclusion.

¶ 5 The district court derived both of its determinations from impermissible methods of statutory interpretation. First, it would “not rule that the language of [the Extension Statute] requires [the] result” Defendant espoused simply because it could “conceive of one other circumstance where the phrase would have meaning.” Second, it relied on O’Neal — rather than on the plain language of the Extension Statute or on other acceptable methods of statutory construction (after first concluding that the statute was ambiguous)— to interpret the Extension Statute. The court interpreted the statute as allowing the court discretion to “impose” a requirement that, for the Extension Statute to be invoked, the State must have “discover[ed] the offense after the expiration of’ the Limitation Period.

¶ 6 However, “[w]hen interpreting statutes, our primary goal is to evince ‘the true intent and purpose of the Legislature.’ To discern the legislature’s intent and purpose, we look first to the ‘best evidence’ of a statute’s meaning, the plain language of the act.” State v. Tooele County, 2002 UT 8, ¶ 10, 44 P.3d 680 (citations omitted). Moreover, “[w]e do not look beyond a statute’s plain language unless it is ambiguous.” Coleman v. Thomas, 2000 UT 53, ¶ 9, 4 P.3d 783. Neither party asserts, and the district court did not conclude, that the Extension Statute is ambiguous. Thus, we reject the district court’s interpretation of the Extension Statute, and interpret the statute according to its plain language.

¶ 7 The Extension Statute provides that “a prosecution may be commenced for any offense a material element of which is ... fraud ... within one year after discovery of the offense” if “the period prescribed in Section 76-1-302 has expired.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-303(1). The “period prescribed in Section 76-1-302,” id., is a two-year period from the time the crime is committed in which the State must commence a prosecution. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-l-302(l)(c). Thus, according to the plain language of the statute, if no action has been commenced within the Limitation Period, “a prosecution may be commenced for any offense a material element of which is ... fraud ... within one year after discovery of the offense.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-303(1). Nothing in the plain language of the statute requires the crime to be discovered after the Limitation Period has expired.

¶ 8 Moreover, the interpretation McKinnon urges us to adopt leads to an absurd result. Under her interpretation, the State would be effectively precluded from prosecuting a fraud if it discovered the offense the day before the Limitation Period expired, due to time constraints, but would be allowed to prosecute the same fraud if it discovered the offense the day after the Limitation Period expired. “[W]e interpret a statute to avoid absurd consequences.” State v. Redd, 1999 UT 108, ¶12, 992 P.2d 986. Thus, we reject McKinnon’s argument that the Extension Statute requires the crime to be discovered after the Limitation Period has expired.

¶ 9 Further, nothing in the plain Ian- guage of the statute allows Utah courts discretion to impose a similar requirement. Thus, although the district court employed impermissible methods of statutory interpretation, it correctly concluded that the Extension Statute does not require discovery of the crime to follow expiration of the Limitation Period in order to invoke the Extension Statute. However, the district court erroneously concluded that it had discretion to impose a similar requirement. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CONCLUSION

¶ 10 According to the plain language of the Extension Statute, the State is not precluded from commencing an action involving fraud against McKinnon simply because it discovered the offense prior to the expiration of the Limitation Period. Further, nothing in the statute allows the district court discretion to impose a similar requirement. Thus, the district court erred in its conclusion to the contrary. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the false notarial certification charge, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 111 CONCUR: PAMELA T. GREENWOOD, Judge.

¶ 12 I DISSENT: GREGORY K. ORME, Judge.

      . Prosecution for "a misdemeanor other than negligent homicide shall be commenced within two years after it is committed....” Utah Code Ann. § 76-l-302(l)(c) (1999).

      . In O’Neal, the supreme court conjectured that a "showing that [one] did not know and could not reasonably have known of the existence of a cause of action" "would seem a definitional prerequisite to reliance on any version of the discovery rule, judicial or legislative.” O'Neal v. Division of Family Servs., 821 P.2d 1139, 1144 (Utah 1991).

      . We note that by choosing "not [to] rule” that the statute "requirefs] the State to discover the offense after the expiration of” the two-year Limitation Period, the district court effectively concluded that the Extension Statute does not require "the state to discover the offense after the expiration” of the Limitation Period.

      .Further, "we seek 'to render all parts [of the statute] relevant and meaningful,’ and we therefore 'presume the legislature use[d] each term advisedly and ... according to its ordinary meaning.' Consequently, we 'avoid interpretations that will render portions of a statute superfluous or inoperative.' " State v. Tooele County, 2002 UT 8, ¶10, 44 P.3d 680 (alterations in original) (citations omitted); see also Biddle v. Washington Terrace City, 1999 UT 110, V 14, 993 P.2d 875 (stating that "omissions in statutory language should be taken note of and given effect” (internal quotation marks omitted)).


author: VOIGT, Justice.

text:
    2002 WY 110
    Nancy LURIE, Appellant (Intervenor/Third Party Claimant), v. Robert J. BLACKWELL, in his capacity as Liquidating Trustee of the Popkin & Stern Liquidating Trust, Appellee (Plaintiff).
    No. 01-212.
    Supreme Court of Wyoming.
    July 18, 2002.
    Stephen L. Simonton of Simonton and Si-monton, Cody, WY, Representing Appellant.
    Colin M. Simpson of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC, the Cody, Wyoming Division of Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersch and Jar-dine, P.C., Cody, WY, Representing Appel-lee.
    Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

        Chief Justice at time of expedited conference.

   VOIGT, Justice.

[¶ 1] In 1978, Ronald U. Lurie and Nancy Lurie, husband and wife, of St. Louis, Missouri, purchased a bronze sculpture from a Missouri art dealer. At some point, the Lu-ries sent the sculpture to a Cody, Wyoming, studio “to be sold,” and the Luries later moved to Montana. In 2001, Robert Blackwell, a Missouri bankruptcy trustee, sought to execute his Missouri bankruptcy judgment against the sculpture in Wyoming, the judgment having been entered only against Ronald U. Lurie. Nancy Lurie sought to quash the execution, claiming that title to the sculpture was held as a tenancy by the entirety and therefore exempt from execution to satisfy a judgment entered solely against her husband. The district court ruled in favor of Robert Blackwell. We reverse.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Nancy Lurie, as appellant, phrases the issues as follows:

1. Does Wyoming prohibit tenancies-by-the-entirety for the kinds of tangible personal property which may be owned without recorded documents of title?
2. If there is a conflict between Wyoming and Missouri law on the recognition of tenancies by the entirety, should not Wyoming continue to follow the principle that the owners’ interest is determined by the law of the state of the owner’s domicile at the time the property was acquired, absent contrary dealings in the property in this state by the owners?
3. If not, does the third party non-debtor owner have standing to object to improper issuance of a writ of execution?

Robert Blackwell, as appellee, essentially frames his arguments in the context of the issues raised by Nancy Lurie.

FACTS

[¶3] Ronald U. Lurie and Nancy Lurie are husband and wife, and were so in 1978. In September 1978, a St. Louis, Missouri, art dealer sold the Luries “Lack of Slack,” a bronze sculpture by Harry Jackson, for $6,500.00. The seller’s affidavit states that he sold the sculpture to “Ron and Nancy Lurie,” and an accompanying bill of sale refers to the buyers as “Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lurie” with a St. Louis, Missouri, address. There is some indication from the information and addresses contained in the record that the Luries later moved to Montana, where they presently reside. In 1994, the Luries sent the sculpture to the Harry Jackson Studio in Cody, Wyoming, “to have it sold,” and the record does not indicate any intent by the Luries for the sculpture to remain in Wyoming on a more permanent basis. Nancy Lurie states that she has not “conveyed, waived or otherwise conceded her ownership interest in the [sculpture], nor has there been any agreement conveying, waiving or terminating the ownership in tenancy by the entirety.”

[¶ 4] In April 1995, a judgment was recorded in the Fifth Judicial District Court of Park County, Wyoming. The judgment, arising from a Missouri bankruptcy proceeding, had been entered in favor of Robert Blackwell, the bankruptcy trustee, against Ronald U. Lurie for $1,121,743.00, plus interest. On March 22, 2001, a Writ of Execution issued from the Wyoming district court, and the Park County Sheriffs office subsequently seized the “Lack of Slack” sculpture at the Harry Jackson Studio in Cody. As of May 14, 2001, the referenced judgment remained unsatisfied in the amount of $745,275.78, which judgment continues to accrue interest.

[¶ 5] Nancy Lurie petitioned to intervene as a third-party claimant and quash the Writ of Execution, essentially arguing that Robert Blackwell could not execute the judgment against the sculpture in Wyoming because Nancy Lurie and Ronald U. Lurie held title to the sculpture as tenants by the entirety. She also attacked the finality of the recorded judgment. Robert Blackwell countered that Nancy Lurie had no standing to attack the sufficiency of the recorded judgment, that the Luries were now residents of Montana, which does not recognize tenancies by the entirety, and that in the alternative, the record is insufficient to overcome Wyoming law’s presumption against tenancies by the entirety. Neither party asserts that the conveyance at issue in this case implicates the Uniform Commercial Code.

[¶ 6] After a hearing on Nancy Lurie’s petition, the district court found that (1) Nancy Lurie did not have standing to question the sufficiency of the recorded judgment; (2) Montana does not recognize tenancies by the entirety; (3) had the original transaction occurred in Wyoming, the Luries “would not be able to qualify their purchase of this property as a tenancy by the entire-ties;” and (4) pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 259, the interests of a third-party creditor in marital personal property are determined using the law of the state where the personal property was located “when the interest is claimed to have been acquired,” and Wyoming law applies because the sculpture was in Wyoming at the time the judgment was obtained and when the instant action was commenced. The district court concluded:

To grant [Nancy Lurie’s] petition would be to give greater protection than Wyoming residents enjoy to a non-resident who bought property in another state and who cannot obtain this protection under the laws of the state where she now resides. I am not persuaded that such a result would be in the interests of the State of Wyoming.

Nancy Lurie requested that the district court reconsider its ruling in light of further information regarding the referenced Restatement section. The district court denied this request, and Nancy Lurie filed a timely appeal from the order denying her verified petition to quash the Writ of Execution.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 7] The facts contained in the record are essentially undisputed; this appeal presents an issue of law which we review de novo, without affording deference to the district court’s decision. Worcester v. State, 2001 WY 82, ¶ 13, 30 P.3d 47, 52 (Wyo.2001); Board of County Com’rs of County of Platte v. State ex rel. Yeadon, 971 P.2d 129, 131 (Wyo.1998).

DISCUSSION

[¶ 8] Given the particular circumstances of this case, wherein it is undisputed that the sale of the “Lack of Slack” sculpture occurred in Missouri (the record does not indicate that the sculpture was located anywhere but Missouri at the time the Luries acquired an interest in it) and that the Luries were domiciled in Missouri at the time they purchased the sculpture, we look to Missouri law to determine the effect of the conveyance of an interest in the sculpture to the Luries. Succinctly stated, the “nature of interests conveyed” in personal property is frequently “determined by the law of the state where the chattel is situated at the time of the conveyance,” and “title to personal property acquired under the law of one state where the chattel is situated will be recognized in another state into which the chattel is taken.” 16 Am.Jur.2d Conflict of Laws §§ 55, 56 (1998). See, e.g., Pruitt Truck & Implement Co. v. Ferguson, 216 Ark. 848, 227 S.W.2d 944, 945 (1950).

[¶ 9] Although we need not expressly adopt the applicable Restatement sections, we note that this approach appears to be consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 244, 247 (1971), which sections provide:

§ 244. Validity and Effect of Conveyance of Interest in Chattel

(1) The validity and effect of a conveyance of an interest in a chattel as between the parties to the conveyance are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to the particular issue, has the most significant relationship to the parties, the chattel and the conveyance under the principles stated in § 6.
(2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties, greater weight will usually be given to the location of the chattel, or group of chattels, at the time of the conveyance than to any other contact in determining the state of the applicable law.

§ 247. Moving Chattel into Another State: Effect on Title Interests in a chattel are not affected by the mere removal of the chattel to another state. Such interests, however, may be affected by dealings with the chattel in the other state.

(Emphasis added.) Indeed, Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, supra, § 247 cmt. a states:

a. Rationale. Commercial convenience and the needs of international and interstate relations alike require that interests in a chattel should not be affected simply by its removal from one state to another. An interest having once been acquired by the local law of the state where the chattel was at the time the interest was acquired will be recognized by a state into which the chattel is subsequently taken. This is so even though no such interest would have been acquired in the latter state if the chattel had been there at the time of the conveyance or other transaction. Conversely, no interest is acquired in a chattel upon its removal to a second state merely because such an interest would have arisen under the local law of the second state if a particular transaction which occurred prior to the chattel’s removal to the state had taken place after the chattel had been removed there.

Illustration:

1. A conveys to B a chattel which is at the time in state X. A and B are both domiciled in X and X is the state of the applicable law under the rule of § 244. By the local law of X, B became absolute owner of the chattel. B subsequently takes the chattel to state Y under whose local law the conveyance would have given B only a security interest in the chattel.
The mere removal of the chattel to Y does not affect B’s interest in the chattel.

' [¶ 10] This Court has looked to another state’s law in evaluating the effect of a conveyance (or lack thereof) of personal property between the parties to that conveyance in relation to a third party’s claimed interest in the property, although in a slightly different context. For example, in Studebaker Bros. Co. of Utah v. Mau, 13 Wyo. 358, 80 P. 151, 152-53 (1905), the seller, a Utah corporation, entered into a conditional sales contract in Utah for the sale of personal property situate in Utah to the buyers, also residents of Utah, wherein title to the personal property remained in the seller until the buyer paid for the property. At some point, one of the buyers (without the seller’s consent) removed the personal property to Wyoming, where he sold it to another individual. Id. at 152. Utah law provided that conditional sales contracts were valid between the parties and as -to subsequent bona fide purchasers without first having to be recorded. Id. at 154. Wyoming law provided that conditional sales were invalid as against subsequent bona fide purchasers without notice, unless the contract was recorded in the county where the property was situated. Id. In recognizing the interest of the Utah corporation in the personal property as against the third-party purchaser, this Court stated that “the validity and effect of contracts relating to personal property are to be determined by the laws of the state or country where they are made, and, as a matter of comity, they will, if valid there, be enforced in another state or country, although not executed or recorded according to the laws of the latter;” in other words, that

where, as in this case, a conditional sale of personal property is made in one state between parties residing in that state, and where the property is then situated and delivered, and without any agreement or intention that the property is to be removed to another state, and such contract is valid, although not filed or recorded, in the state where made, against bona fide purchasers from the conditional vendee, and the conditional vendee, without the knowledge or consent of the vendor, removes the property to another state, and there sells it to a bona fide purchaser, such purchaser acquires only such rights in the property as the conditional vendee had therein; and that the conditional vendor can recover the property from such purchaser notwithstanding the fact that the conditional sale would have been invalid for want of filing or record under the laws of the state to which the property was removed and where it was sought to be recovered.

Id. at 154. On rehearing, this Court found that recognizing the valid interest created in Utah would not be contrary to Wyoming law or policy, stating also that

“[a]pplying by analogy the principles that have been applied to chattel mortgages, it would seem that the validity and effect of the reservation of title in the contract of sale of personal property should be determined by the lex loci contractus, rather than the lex situs, not only when the question arises between the immediate parties, but also when it arises between the vendor and a subsequent purchaser from or creditors of the vendee, so far as the rights of such purchaser or creditor depend upon the original validity and effect of the reservation itself. But, however that may be, it is clear that, when the contract is made in the state in which the property is then located, the question as to the original validity and effect of the reservation is to be determined by the law of that state, nqtwithstanding the subsequent removal of the property to another state.”

Studebaker Bros. Co. of Utah v. Mau, 14 Wyo. 68, 82 P. 2, 5 (1905) (quoting Wharton on the Conflict of Laws § 355(b)).

[¶ 11] Robert Blackwell essentially argues that the principles stated in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, supra, § 247 and 16 Am.Jur.2d Conflict of Laws, supra, § 56, are inapplicable because the Lu-ries are no longer domiciled in Missouri, and the substantive law of Montana (the Luries’ current domicile) or Wyoming (where the sculpture is located and the bankruptcy judgment is recorded) should be utilized to determine a third-party judgment creditor’s rights regarding the sculpture. But Robert Blackwell’s right to execute his judgment against the sculpture in Wyoming necessarily depends on the effect of the conveyance of the sculpture to the Luries. We evaluate the effect of that conveyance according to the circumstances existing at the time of the conveyance. At that time, the Luries and the seller were domiciled in Missouri, and the sculpture was apparently situate in Missouri. Aside from Robert Blackwell recording the Missouri judgment in Wyoming and attempting to execute that judgment against the sculpture, the record does not reveal any additional dealings or transactions in Wyoming that might affect whatever interest the Luries originally acquired in the sculpture. That the Luries may have later moved to Montana is not sufficient, itself, to affect the Luries’ original interest in the sculpture. Recognizing that the instant case lends itself to numerous potential factual variations, which variations might implicate a different legal result, we limit the application of our holding to the context, and facts, before us.

[¶ 12] It is undisputed that the Luries were married at the time they acquired an interest in the sculpture. According to Missouri law, where “two persons who are husband and wife become joint owners of personal property a presumption arises that they hold the property as tenants by the entirety. The presumption is that each spouse owns an undivided interest in the whole of the property.” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. v. Shackelford, 591 S.W.2d 210, 213 (Mo.App.1979); see also Seabaugh v. Seabaugh, 839 S.W.2d 49, 50 (Mo.App.1992); Nelson v. Hotchkiss, 601 S.W.2d 14, 18 (Mo.1980); and In re Stanke, 234 B.R. 439, 441 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1999). Robert Blackwell does not direct us to any facts sufficient to rebut such a presumption, and the district court found that the Luries “acquired ownership of the personal property in Missouri as tenants by the entireties.”

[¶ 13] Accordingly, Robert Blackwell cannot execute his judgment against the sculpture at this time. The bankruptcy judgment at issue was entered only against Ronald U. Lurie. Neither Wyoming nor Missouri law allows a judgment creditor to seize property held- by a husband and wife as tenants by the entirety to satisfy the individual debts of one of the spouses. Colorado Nat. Bank v. Miles, 711 P.2d 390, 393-94 (Wyo.1985); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., 591 S.W.2d at 214-15; In re Stanke, 234 B.R. at 442. It is undisputed that Nancy Lurie has not “conveyed, waived or otherwise conceded her ownership interest in the [sculpture], nor has there been any agreement conveying, waiving or terminating the ownership in tenancy by the entirety.” In light of this finding, we need not address the parties’ remaining issues, and we reverse the district court’s decision.

      . § 6. Choice-of-Law Principles
      (1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive of its own state on choice of law.
      (2) When there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable rule of law include
      (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,
      (b) the relevant policies of the forum,
      (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue,
      (d) the protection of justified expectations,
      (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law,
      (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and
      (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.
      Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, supra, § 6.

      . To the extent it might also apply, this approach is consistent with Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, supra, § 259, which section provides:
      § 259. Removal of Movables of Spouses to Another State
      A marital property interest in a chattel, or right embodied in a document, which has been acquired by either or both of the spouses, is not affected by the mere removal of the chattel or document to a second state, whether or not this removal is accompanied by a change of domicil to the other state on the part of one or both of the spouses. The interest, however, may be affected by dealings with the chattel or document in the second state.
      "[MJarital property” is defined as “any interest which one spouse acquires, solely by reason of the marital relation, in the immovables and movables of the other spouse, apart from the expectancy of inheriting upon the death of the other.” Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, supra, § 257, Introductory Note at 108.

      . Wyoming recognizes tenancies by the entirety in real or personal property. Oatts v. Jorgenson, 821 P.2d 108, 114 (Wyo.1991); Choman v. Ep-pertey, 592 P.2d 714, 715-19 (Wyo.1979); National Bank of Newcastle v. Wartell, 580 P.2d 1142, 1144 (Wyo.1978); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-140 (LexisNexis 2001). However, joint tenancies and/or tenancies by the entirety are disfavored in Wyoming. Oatts, 821 P.2d at 114. In Oatts, the personal property at issue was a treasury bill registered to a decedent, his wife, and his daughter. Id. at 109. We stated that absent an express, "clear manifestation” of the intention to create a joint tenancy interest on the "face of the instrument,” a tenancy in common will be presumed. Id. at 114.
      Montana apparently does not recognize tenancies by the entirety and its legislature has codi-fled a rule that if " 'there is no law to the ■ contrary in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the law of his domi- . cile.’ ” Lurie v. Sheriff of Gallatin County, 299 Mont. 283, 2000 MT 103, ¶ 13, 999 P.2d 342, 345 (2000) (quoting § 70-1-109, MCA). In Lurie, a case involving these same parties, the Montana Supreme Court held that because the Luries were domiciled in Montana and the personal property was also situate in Montana, "personal 'property owned by Appellant and her husband Ronald as tenancy by the entirety in Missouri may not be held in that manner in Montana,” 'and such property was subject to execution in Montana. Lurie, 2000 MT 103, ¶ 15, 999 P.2d at 346.


author: GOLDEN, Justice.

text:
    2002 WY 118
    Todd Luther NIXON, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
    No. 01-55.
    Supreme Court of Wyoming.
    Aug. 5, 2002.

      Representing Appellant: Todd Luther Nixon, pro se.
    Representing Appellee: Hoke MacMillan, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehu-rek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
    Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN , KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

       Chief Justice at time of expedited conference

   GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶ 1] Todd Luther Nixon appeals pro se from the district court’s order which denied his post-sentence and post-direct appeal motion to withdraw his guilty pleas filed pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 32(d). In that motion, Nixon raised several claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a claim that the district court and his trial counsel failed to advise him about mitigation matters he could have presented during the sentencing phase of his capital case. In this appeal, Nixon raises those issues and the issue whether the district court erred by not conducting an evidentiary hearing on Nixon’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Although the State responds substantively to those issues, it first asks this Court to consider whether Nixon’s appeal should be dismissed on grounds that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain Nixon’s post-sentence and post-direct appeal motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

[¶ 2] Having carefully considered the jurisdictional question raised by the State, we hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain Nixon’s post-sentence and post-direct appeal motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.

FACTS

[¶ 3] In early June of 1997, law enforcement authorities charged Nixon with first degree murder (felony murder in the perpetration of child abuse) in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(a) and with aggravated assault and battery in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502(a)(i) arising from the death of his three-year-old, CL. Nixon v. State, 4 P.3d 864, 866 (Wyo.2000). As the case proceeded, Nixon changed his pleas of not guilty to pleas of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. Id.

[¶ 4] On August 22, 1997, a written plea agreement between Nixon and the State was consummated pursuant to which the State relinquished its option to seek the death penalty and Nixon entered pleas of guilty to the two charges. Id. On October 7, 1997, before sentencing, Nixon filed a motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty. Nixon asserted that his pleas were involuntary because the district court at the August 22 change of plea hearing had erroneously advised him that probation was a possibility although “extremely unlikely.” Id. at 867. Nixon claimed that this improper and misleading advice influenced his decision to plead guilty. Id. at 868. The district court considered Nixon’s motion, conceded that the advice was in error, but ruled that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the totality of the record. Id. The district court denied Nixon’s motion.

[¶ 5] At the sentencing hearing on October 10, 1997, the district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for first degree murder, which was to run concurrent to a sentence of seven to ten years imprisonment for aggravated assault and battery; and the district court ordered Nixon to pay attorney fees, a sum to the crime victim’s compensation fund, and restitution. Id. at 868.

[¶ 6] Nixon filed a notice of appeal on October 31, 1997, from the judgment and sentences, asserting as error the district court’s denial of his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty and the requirement for restitution. Id. This Court considered those assertions, found no error, and affirmed Nixon’s judgment and sentence in a decision published April 10, 2000. Id. at 872. On January 8, 2001, some nine months after this Court’s affirmance of Nixon’s direct appeal and some three years and three months after the district court’s imposition of sentence, Nixon pro se filed his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 32(d).

[¶ 7] In this motion, Nixon again challenged the voluntariness of his pleas of guilty, albeit on grounds different from those asserted in his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty. This time Nixon’s asserted grounds concerned instances of alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, specifically whether his trial counsel, and the district court, failed to advise him of any matters in mitigation he could present during the sentencing phase; whether his trial counsel failed to investigate the case and failed to advise him of potential defenses and of strengths and weaknesses of the State’s case; whether his trial counsel failed properly to advise him of the sentence he was facing; and whether the above and foregoing errors cumulatively denied him his right to effective assistance of counsel. We note that these claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were not raised in Nixon’s direct appeal of his conviction, judgment and sentence. Nixon, 4 P.3d at 865-66. The district court denied this motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed in ; which Nixon challenges the district court’s failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing and the district court’s denial of the motion to •withdraw guilty pleas.

[¶ 8] As explained below, this Court’s ■ precedent, as well as policy considerations including the interest in the finality of criminal decisions, mandate that such a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, filed after an appeal of right from a judgment and sentence has " been concluded, cannot be considered by the district court because of a lack of jurisdiction over such matters. Further, because this Court enjoys no greater jurisdiction than that of the district court in such matters, this . Court must dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this Court.

ANALYSIS

[¶ 9] Rule 32(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure addresses the withdrawal of guilty pleas:

(d) Plea withdrawal. — If a motion for withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo con-tendere is made before sentence is imposed, the court may permit withdrawal of the plea upon a showing by the defendant of any fair and just reason. At any later time, a plea may be set aside only to correct manifest injustice.

"Although this Rule does not, in and of itself, set a time limit for filing such a motion with the district court after sentencing, such a limit must exist as a logical corollary to the general rule that a case becomes final after judgment and sentence is entered and an appellate decision affirming the conviction has been made, or the time for taking an appeal expires without perfection of an appeal, or after the voluntary dismissal of such an appeal. See Schuler v. State, 771 P.2d 1217, 1220 (Wyo.1989) (citing Attletweedt v. State, 684 P.2d 812 (Wyo.1984); State v. Duswalt, 153 N.J.Super. 399, 379 A.2d 1278 (1977)), for the proposition that a case is no longer pending after a final judgment (in Wyoming, that is the judgment and sentence) has been entered in the trial court. Unless a specific, express exception is created to this general rule by statute or court rule, a district court’s jurisdiction to consider a motion to withdraw a plea—or any other motion not specifically provided for by statute or rule— ends when the case becomes final because of the expiration of the time for taking an appeal. In sum, once a criminal case becomes final pursuant to the general rule, a trial court loses the power to act in that case unless it is expressly permitted to do so by statute or court rule.

[¶ 10] In fact, this Court and the Wyoming Legislature have provided specific methods in both statutes and court rules for seeking review of prior and otherwise final criminal proceedings. With two exceptions, both confined to challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court—correcting an illegal sentence pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) and state habeas corpus relief pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-27-101 et seq.—all available methods contain time limits for taking such actions. For instance, a motion for sentence reduction must be made within one year after the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked, or within one year after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affir-mance of the judgment or dismissal of the. appeal, or within one year after entry of any order or judgment of the Wyoming Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction or probation revocation. W.R.Cr.P. 35(b). After expiration of that period, the district court no longer has jurisdiction to reduce a sentence. Stewart v. State, 654 P.2d 727 (Wyo.1982).

[¶ 11] Similarly, Wyoming statutes provide two additional avenues for presenting a challenge of a conviction to a district court: by way of the post-conviction relief statutes at Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-14-101 through 108, and state habeas corpus relief at Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-27-101 through 134. Review by way of a petition for post-conviction relief must be filed within the five-year limitation period, and the scope of such review is strictly limited. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-14-103 (LexisNexis 2001).

[¶ 12] Review in a state habeas corpus action is not time limited, but is seriously limited in scope so that defendants may only raise a claim going to the subject matter or personal jurisdiction of the court. Hovey v. Sheffner, 16 Wyo. 254, 265-67, 93 P. 305, 307-08 (1908). This remedy is also unique in that the petition must be made to the court most convenient in distance to the petitioner. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-27-104 (LexisNexis 2001). In other words, this particular remedy is not even a continuation of the criminal proceeding, but is a separate civil proceeding, so the continuing jurisdiction of the district court in the original criminal action is not of concern.

[¶ 13] In short, except where there has been a remand following an appeal in a criminal case, or where one of the statutes or rules mentioned above otherwise expressly permits a district court to continue to assert jurisdiction over that criminal case, no authority exists for the court to act in the ease—and its jurisdiction over the case should end—once the defendant’s conviction has become final because of his exercise or forfeiture of his right to appeal from that conviction. See Frenzel v. State, 938 P.2d 867, 870 (Wyo.1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 959, 118 S.Ct. 388, 139 L.Ed.2d 303 (1997) (recognizing the legislative mandate denying district courts jurisdiction to hear a second petition for post-conviction relief).

[¶ 14] In fact, if this Court were to decide that courts do not lose jurisdiction to hear motions to withdraw guilty pleas after the time for appeal has run, such would seem to create a substantive right which has been expressly denied to criminal defendants by the legislature in the statutes relating to post-conviction relief. Such would clearly be in violation of Wyoming’s constitutional provisions relating to the separation of powers.

That is, unlike the Federal system, in Wyoming, the creation of rules which do no more than govern procedures in the courts is exclusively the province of the courts and such rules govern procedure in the courts, while laws conferring substantive rights, such as the availability of post-conviction relief, must come from the legislature. This is a separation of powers issue under the Wyoming Constitution that this Court has long recognized. For instance, in Squillace v. Kelley, 990 P.2d 497, 501 (Wyo.1999), this Court found:

Article 5, § 2 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming provides in pertinent part that this Court “shall have a general superintending control over all inferior courts, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law.” This general superintending control “encompasses the authority to prescribe rules of practice and procedure in those courts.” White v. Fisher, 689 P.2d [102] at 106 [(Wyo.1984)]. We have consistently upheld this Court’s plenary power to control the course of litigation in the trial courts. Id. The legislature recognizes these pertinent constitutional provisions which afford this Court full authority over rules of practice and procedure and the Court’s inherent power to prescribe rules. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 5-2-114, 115 (LEXIS 1999). The prescription of the practice and procedure attending the imposition of sanctions for the signing and filing of papers with the courts is a procedural, not a substantive, matter. The legislature is prohibited from enacting statutes pertaining to such matter. White v. Fisher, 689 P.2d at 107. In Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-14-128, the legislature has im-permissibly enacted a statute pertaining to a procedural matter; therefore, we hold that this statute is unconstitutional.

See also, Hopkinson v. State, 664 P.2d 43, 50 (Wyo.1983), superseded by rule as stated in Grainey v. State, 997 P.2d 1035, 1040 (Wyo.2000) (“This court has approved the proposition that the power to determine what acts are crimes, and the punishment for prohibited acts belongs to the legislative branch as an absolute, exclusive and inherent power not shared with the courts.”).

[¶ 15] The Wyoming Legislature has provided a substantive right to re-open otherwise final criminal judgments in creating jurisdiction in district courts over post-conviction review, but it has determined it necessary both to place a time limit on such review and to limit the scope of that review. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-14-101 through 108 (LexisNexis 2001). However, such limitations on the substantive right provided to a petitioner under that act, and on the jurisdiction accorded to district courts under the act, would be rendered meaningless if this Court were to permit temporally unlimited challenges to a guilty plea under Rule 32(d).

[¶ 16] If this Court were to permit such challenges, defendants could ignore the limitation of post-conviction relief and bide their time in prison until witnesses are dead or scattered and evidence is lost before seeking identical relief pursuant to Rule 32(d). Moreover, they could do so unencumbered by the res judicata effect, inherent in the post-conviction statutes, of having earlier pursued or declined to pursue their claims in a timely appeal from conviction. Taking the argument to its extreme would also mean no limit exists on the number of such motions which may be filed. Further, “at any time” may include after a defendant’s sentence has already been served. In other words, the concept of finality would be rendered a fiction.

[¶ 17] Recognizing the many consequences of allowing a defendant to file a motion to withdraw a guilty plea “at any time,” this Court, in a line of orders since March of 1998, has declared that trial courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d), if that motion is filed after an appeal of right from a conviction has been concluded, after the time for such an appeal has run and no appeal has been taken, or after such an appeal has been taken but then voluntarily dismissed. See Harrison v. State, No. 01-187, Order Denying Petition For Reinstatement As Moot Following Discovery That This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Entertain This Appeal (Wyo.10/23/2001) (petition for reinstatement of appeal denied; motion to withdraw guilty plea not filed until 20 years after entry of plea); Springfield v. State, No. 01-132, Order Dismissing Appeal (Wyo.10/23/2001) (appeal dismissed, as motion to withdraw guilty plea not brought until over 27 years after entry of plea); Chavez v. State, No. 99-182, Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction (Wyo.10/7/1999) (7 days between lapse of appeal time and motion to withdraw guilty plea); Pfeil v. State, No. 99-142, Order Granting Motion To Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction (Wyo.6/29/1999) (motion to withdraw guilty plea filed at least 14 months after right of direct appeal from the judgment and sentence expired); Rude v. State, No. 98-302, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction (Wyo.5/25/1999) (motion for withdrawal of guilty plea filed “some six years after the appellant’s direct appeal from the plea in question”); Watson v. State, No. 99-14, Order Dismissing Appeal from District Court’s Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas (Wyo.4/7/1999) (21 years between entry of plea and motion to withdraw guilty plea); Harlow v. State, No. 98-276, Order Denying Jurisdiction Over Late Filed Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas (Wyo.9/22/1998) (10 years lapse between entry of guilty plea and motion to withdraw); Solis v. State, No. 97-192, Minute Order of Dismissal (Wyo.4/22/1998) (30 days between voluntary dismissal of appeal and motion to withdraw guilty plea); Parazoo v. State, No. 97-193, Minute Order of Dismissal (Wyo.3/4/1998) (12 years between entry of judgment and sentence and motion to withdraw guilty plea). To now hold otherwise would require reversal of the above line of orders.

[¶ 18] It should also be noted that the Court’s current position on this subject, as set forth in the line of orders noted above, is entirely consistent with this Court’s suggestion — before the adoption of the Rules of Criminal Procedure — that a motion to withdraw a plea must be made “promptly, at the earliest possible moment, or at least within a reasonable time after entry of the plea.” Hubble v. State, 41 Wyo. 275, 283, 285 P. 153, 156 (1930) (finding a violation of the “rule of promptness” where the appellant filed a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his plea two years and three months after entry of the plea). Unquestionably, “a reasonable time after entry of the plea” is before the time for appeal expires. Nixon’s motion comes over three years after entry of his plea and such cannot even remotely be said to be “reasonable.”

[¶ 19] Moreover, if this Court should now choose not to limit the time period for filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, contrary to the above-cited line of authority, such a choice would also conflict with this Court’s legal precedent that failure to raise an issue on direct appeal waives review of that issue. “It is a long-standing rule of law that issues that could have been raised on appeal are not open to challenge by a petition for post-conviction relief because they are foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata.” Kallas v. State, 776 P.2d 198,199 (Wyo.1989) (citing Cutbirth v. State, 751 P.2d 1257, 1261 (Wyo.1988)). Allowing a defendant another shot at an appeal-like proceeding, any number of years after their conviction has become final, would allow an end run around this waiver doctrine.

[¶20] Recognizing the importance of finality in criminal proceedings, Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has been limited in its reach, as well. F.R.Cr.P. 32(e) provides:

(e) PLEA WITHDRAWAL. If a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo conten-dere is made before sentence is imposed, the court may permit the plea to be withdrawn if the defendant shows any fair and just reason. At any later time, a plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

[¶ 21] The pre-1983 version of present Rule 32(e) (then Rule 32(d)) provided:

(d) WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA OF GUILTY. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may be made only before sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea.

18 U.S.C. app. at 624 (1982).

[¶22] In 1983, the last part of the rule was deleted and the phrase “At any later time, a plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or by motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255” was added to clarify when such motions may be made after sentencing, as the earlier version seemed to some courts to allow for such “at any time”. See United States v. Watson, 548 F.2d 1058, 1063 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“It will be noted from the foregoing language of the Rule that there is no limitation upon the time within which relief thereunder may, after sentencing, be sought.”). As it now stands, the rule makes it clear that a motion to withdraw guilty plea may only be raised before the imposition of sentence. After that time, the relief earlier available through such a motion may only be sought on direct appeal — which, pursuant to F.R.A.P 4(b), must be initiated within ten days after entry of either the judgment or order being appealed — or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which requires that the petition be filed in the trial court within one year of:

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 (2002).

[¶ 23] As noted in the 1983 Advisory Committee Note to Rule 32:

Moreover, because § 2255 and Rule 32(d) are properly characterized as the “two principal procedures for collateral attack of a federal plea conviction,” Borman, The Hidden Right to Direct Appeal From a Federal Conviction, 64 Cornell L.Rev. 319, 327 (1979), this amendment is also in keeping with the proposition underlying the Supreme Court’s decision in United State v. Timmreck, [441 U.S. 780, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d. 634 (1979),] supra, namely, that “the concern with finality served by the limitation on collateral attack has special force with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas.”

F.R.Cr.P. 32 Advisory Committee Note; 18 U.S.C. app. at 799 (1982) (emphasis added).

[¶ 24] The need for finality in criminal eases when a defendant has voluntarily and knowingly agreed to plead guilty has been recognized on a number of occasions by this Court. When considering the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal after entering into an agreement to plead guilty, this Court has recognized the need for finality in holding that an individual may only raise issues concerning either the jurisdiction of the trial court or the voluntariness of the ’ plea. In that regard, this Court has stated:

In reaching this result, we are aware of the argument that, for the sake of judicial ■ economy, a criminal defendant should not be forced to go to trial merely to preserve his right to appeal pretrial objections. United States ex rel. Rogers v. Warden of Attica State Prison, 381 F.2d 209 (2d Cir.1967). However, against that interest, we must weigh the need for finality in the judicial process.
“A guilty plea should mark the end of a criminal case, not a gateway to future litigation. More than a confession, a guilty plea signals defendant’s ‘intention not to litigate the question of his guilt, and necessarily involves the surrender of certain constitutional rights * * ” People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1, 489 N.Y.S.2d 152, 154, 478 N.E.2d 755, 757 (1985), quoting People v. Lynn, 28 N.Y.2d 196, 201-02, 321 N.Y.S.2d 74, 269 N.E.2d 794 (1971).

Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423, 426 (Wyo.1987). In addition, in Smith v. State, 871 P.2d 186, 188 (Wyo.1994), this Court noted:

A guilty plea prohibits appellate review of all but a few defenses. Ochoa v. State, 848 P.2d 1359,1361-62 (Wyo.1993); Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423, 425 (Wyo.1987).
“When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.”
Davila v. State, 831 P.2d 204, 206 (Wyo.1992) (quoting Zanetti v. State, 783 P.2d 134, 138 (Wyo.1989) and Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602,1608, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973)).

[¶ 25] Moreover, this Court has recognized the importance of finality in criminal cases in other areas as well. This Court has limited the doctrine of retroactivity in the interests of the finality of a criminal case. See Farbotnik v. State, 850 P.2d 594, 602 (Wyo.1993) (“The interest of the State in achieving finality justifies limited retroactivity.”); Brown v. State, 816 P.2d 818, 847 (Wyo.1991) (Discussing the viability of recanted testimony presented in a motion for a new trial, this Court stated: “But the viability of the system also requires that criminal justice be administered efficiently and that the public have faith in the finality of judgments.”).

[¶ 26] This Court has likewise restricted post-conviction review of claims after conclusion of an appeal, in part, because of the importance of finality in a criminal action.

It is true that we have adopted a disciplined approach to post-conviction relief and have concluded that it is not to be invoked as a substitute for a direct appeal, nor should it be treated like a direct appeal. Cutbirth v. State, 751 P.2d 1257 (Wyo.1988); Pote v. State, 733 P.2d 1018 (Wyo.1987); Munoz v. Maschner, 590 P.2d 1352 (Wyo.1979). The effect of our rulings is to foreclose from consideration under post-conviction relief those questions which could have been presented on direct appeal. In so doing, we honor the rule of res judicata and promote the concept of finality. This stance is supportive of those considerations of judicial economy which suggest that a review of certain issues is best accomplished by direct appeal. Furthermore, we limit consideration of post-conviction relief to those motions which raise questions of constitutional magnitude and manifest a miscarriage of justice. Cutbirth; Wright v. State, 718 P.2d 35 (Wyo.1986).

Gist v. State, 768 P.2d 1054, 1055 (Wyo.1989) (emphasis added).

[¶ 27] We note, too, the societal interests at stake in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-40-204 (Lex-isNexis 2001), which provides that victims and witnesses of crimes are to be informed during the criminal justice process. For those victims or witnesses who opt to be informed about criminal proceedings relating to the crime in which they were victimized or which they witnessed, § l-40-204(a)(ii) requires notification to the victim or witness of the status of a case through “the final appellate review.” If the phrase “at any time” in Rule 32(d) is construed as Nixon would have this Court construe it, crime victims would effectively be subjected to re-victimization upon notification — 20, 30 or 50 years after the crime — that the person that victimized them gets yet another appeal, this time from the denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Such simply cannot serve to promote any sense of finality.

[¶ 28] The detrimental effect of collateral attacks on final judgments has also been noted by the United States Supreme Court:

Nonetheless, we repeatedly have recognized that collateral attacks raise numerous concerns not present on direct review. Most profound is the effect on finality. It goes without saying that, at some point, judicial proceedings must draw to a close and the matter deemed conclusively resolved; no society can afford forever to question the correctness of its every judgment. “The writ,” however, “strikes at finality,” McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 491, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1468, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991), depriving the criminal law “of much of its deterrent effect,” Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1074, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (plurality opinion), and sometimes preventing the law’s just application altogether, see McCleskey, supra, 499 U.S., at 491, 111 S.Ct., at 1468. “No one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial system, not society as a whole is benefitted by a judgment providing a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be subject to fresh litigation.” Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 691, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1179, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also McCleskey, supra, 499 U.S., at 492, 111 S.Ct., at 1469.

Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 698, 113 S.Ct. 1745, 1756-57, 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (emphasis added).

[¶ 29] The United States Supreme Court especially recognizes the particular importance of finality in criminal cases where the defendant has entered into a guilty plea:

We have strictly limited the circumstances under which a guilty plea may be attacked on collateral review. “It is well settled that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty made by an accused person, who has been advised by competent counsel, may not be collaterally attacked.” Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 508, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 2546-2547, 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) (footnote omitted). And even the voluntariness and intelligence of a guilty plea can be attacked on collateral review only if first challenged on direct review. Habeas review is an extraordinary remedy and “ ‘will not be allowed to do service for an appeal.’ ” Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 354,114 S.Ct. 2291, 2300, 129 L.Ed.2d 277 (1994) (quoting Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 178, 67 S.Ct. 1588, 1590-1591, 91 L.Ed. 1982 (1947)). Indeed, “the concern with finality served by the limitation on collateral attack has special force with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas.” United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 2087, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979).

Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 1610, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) (emphasis added).

[¶ 30] In sum, the above-noted authorities and policy arguments require the conclusion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Nixon’s motion to withdraw his plea, and the further conclusion that the instant appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this Court, for “[n]o one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial system, not society as a whole is benefited by a judgment providing a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be subject to fresh litigation on issues already resolved.” Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 691, 91 S.Ct. 1171, 1179, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part).

      . Article 2, § 1 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming provides:
      The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments: The legislative, executive and judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.

      . In the Federal system, court rules are subject to approval by Congress, the result being that Federal court rules have the force and effect of a legislative enactment. In Wyoming, court rules are issued solely by the courts and are not subject to approval of the legislature.