City of St. George v. Hon. Gentry - Vacates Dismissal, Orders Justice Court Remand

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

City of St. George v. Hon. Gentry

Court of Appeals of Utah

• Citations: 2026 UT App 62

• Docket Number: Case No. 20260034-CA

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (13.9K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

2026 UT App 62

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

ST. GEORGE CITY,
Petitioner,
v.
HONORABLE ERIC GENTRY,
Respondent.

Per Curiam Opinion
No. 20260034-CA
Filed April 16, 2026

Original Proceeding in this Court

Kristopher D. Pearson, Attorney for Petitioner
Keisa L. Williams, Joseph A. Willard, Sonia Sweeney,
and Stacy R. Haacke, Attorneys for Respondent
Russell S. Pietryga, Attorney for Real Party in
Interest Joseph Kerry Caruso

Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, RYAN M. HARRIS,
and AMY J. OLIVER.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 This matter is before the court on St. George City’s (the
City) petition for extraordinary relief. The City asks this court to
set aside the district court’s order dismissing a criminal case
against Joseph Kerry Caruso and to instruct the district court to
instead remand the matter to the justice court.

¶2 “To obtain extraordinary relief, [the City] must
demonstrate that the ordinary judicial process does not provide
[it] with a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to challenge the
disputed court order.” See Gollaher v. State, 2017 UT App 168, ¶ 11,
405 P.3d 831 (cleaned up). Because a district court’s order
reviewing a decision made in justice court is generally not
St. George v. Honorable Eric Gentry

appealable, see Utah Code § 78A-7-118(11), the City has
established the lack of any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy.

¶3 Decisions about whether to grant petitions for
extraordinary relief are “left to the sound discretion of the court
hearing the petition.” In re M.L., 2017 UT App 61, ¶ 11, 397 P.3d
681 (cleaned up). “When determining whether or not to grant the
relief requested in the petition, the court will consider several
factors, such as: (1) the egregiousness of the alleged error, (2) the
significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, and (3) the
severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error.” Id.
(cleaned up). In this case, the seriousness of the alleged error and
the significance of the legal issue are factors that weigh in favor of
granting extraordinary relief.

¶4 There are several circumstances where a criminal matter in
justice court may be appealed to the district court. A
defendant may obtain a trial de novo in the district court on
the merits of a conviction by timely filing a notice of
appeal following a sentence or plea in abeyance. See Utah Code
§ 78A-7-118(2). Additionally, a defendant may request a
hearing de novo in the district court regarding other matters,
including “an order revoking probation.” Id. § 78A-7-118(5)(a).
And a prosecuting entity may request a hearing de novo
regarding various orders, including a final judgment of dismissal
or an order terminating the prosecution. See id. § 78A-7-118(7)(a).
Once the district court has entered a decision in a hearing de novo,
it must “remand the case to the justice court unless . . . the decision
results in immediate dismissal of the case” or “the hearing de
novo was on a pretrial order and the parties and the district court
agree to have the district court retain jurisdiction.” Id. § 78A-7-
118(9).

¶5 In this case, Caruso pled guilty in 2020 to two class B
misdemeanors, and the justice court placed him on probation.

20260034-CA 2 2026 UT App 62
St. George v. Honorable Eric Gentry

Later, in 2025, the justice court revoked his probation, and
Caruso asked for a hearing de novo in district court regarding the
justice court’s probation revocation order. But rather than
remanding the case after entering a decision on the matter that
was the subject of the hearing de novo, the district court dismissed
the entire case. As a result, Caruso’s underlying convictions were
set aside, and the case was closed. We agree with the City that the
district court erred by dismissing the entire case rather than
simply remanding the matter to the justice court following a
ruling regarding Caruso’s challenge to the probation revocation
order.

¶6 Had Caruso wanted to seek dismissal of his charges, he
would have needed to file a timely appeal to the district
court following entry of his sentence in 2020. See id. § 78A-7-
118(2). He did not do so. The appeal he filed in 2025 sought a
hearing de novo regarding the justice court order revoking
his probation. While some issues raised in a hearing de novo
may result in the dismissal of a case—for example, the
prosecution’s appeal of a dismissal ruling or termination of
prosecution—a ruling in Caruso’s favor in this appeal to the
district court could only undo the justice court’s probation
revocation order and could not result in dismissal of his
underlying convictions. And while a district court is not required
to remand a case to the justice court when its “decision results in
immediate dismissal of the case,” id. § 78A-7-118(9), the dismissal
here was in error. Thus, the matter should have been remanded
to the justice court. See id.

¶7 For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s dismissal
order is vacated, and the court is instructed to enter an order

20260034-CA 3 2026 UT App 62
St. George v. Honorable Eric Gentry

regarding Caruso’s challenge to the probation revocation order 1
and then remand the matter to the justice court.

1. The record contains no reasoning from the district court explaining its decision to dismiss the case, and the court does not appear to have made any specific ruling regarding the probation revocation. We think it possible that the court may have intended to simply dismiss Caruso’s appeal rather than the entire case. Regardless of the district court’s intention, however, the effect of the order, in the context of a de novo proceeding, was dismissal of the entire case, and Caruso’s convictions were erroneously set aside as a result. On remand from this court, the district court should clarify whether it intended to only set aside the justice court’s probation revocation order and then remand the matter to the justice court.

20260034-CA 4 2026 UT App 62