Print Version
Previous PageFile uploaded: 10/31/2014

Rule 37. Suggestion of mootness; voluntarydismissal.

(a) Suggestion of mootness. It is the duty of each party at alltimes during the course of an appeal or other proceeding to inform the court ofany circumstances which have transpired subsequent to the filing of the appealor other proceeding which render moot one or more of the issues raised. If aparty determines that one or more, but less than all, of the issues have beenrendered moot, the party shall promptly advise the court by filing a "suggestionof mootness" in the form of a motion under Rule 23. If all parties toan appeal or other proceeding agree as to the mootness of one ormore, but less than all, of the issues raised, astipulation to that effect shall be filed with the suggestion of mootness.If an appellant determines all issues raised in theappeal or other proceeding are moot, a motion for voluntary dismissal shall befiled pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this rule.

(b) Voluntary dismissal. At any time prior to the issuance of adecision an appellant may move to voluntarily dismiss an appeal or otherproceeding. If all parties to an appeal or other proceeding agree thatdismissal is appropriate, a stipulation to that effect shall be filed with themotion for voluntary dismissal. Any such stipulation shall specify the terms asto payment of costs, if applicable, and provide for payment of whatever feesare due.

(c) If appellant has the right to effective assistance of counsel,a motion to voluntarily dismiss for reasons other than mootness shall be accompaniedby appellant's personal affidavit demonstrating that appellant's decision todismiss the appeal is voluntary and made with knowledge of the right to anappeal and an understanding of the consequences of voluntary dismissal.

(d) A suggestion of mootness or motion for voluntarydismissal shall be subject to the appellate court?s approval.

Advisory Committee Note. 

Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to the effectiveassistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984); State v. Arguelles, 921 P.2d 439, 441 (Utah 1996). Parties injuvenile court proceedings have a statutory right to effective assistance ofcounsel. State ex rel. E.H. v. A.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah App. 1994); see UtahCode Ann. ? 78-3a-913(1)(a)(Supp. 1998). To protectthese rights and the right to appeal, Utah Code Ann. ? 77-18a-1(1)(Supp. 1998); id. ? 78-3a-909(1)(1996), the last sentencewas added to Rule 37(b) to assure that the decision to abandon an appeal is aninformed choice made by the appellant, not unilaterally by appellant'sattorney.