Posted: July 23, 2026
Rules of Appellate Procedure – Comment Period Closed September 8, 2026
URAP001. Scope of rules. Amend. The Committee proposes amending Rule 1 to: 1) clarify which rules do not apply to substantiation proceedings under Utah Code § 80-3-504; and 2) clean-up for clarity and consistency.
URAP019. Extraordinary relief. Amend. The Committee proposes amending Rule 19 to: 1) clarify that the contents of the petition must include headings and be in order; and 2) add a procedure for the clerk to reject a petition if all required contents are not included.
URAP027. Form of briefs, motions, and other documents. Amend. Rule 27 was previously posted for public comment for proposed amendments to add a requirement that cases involving pretrial detention, parental rights, or child custody must state that it is such a case on the cover of the brief. The new proposed amendment expands that list to include capital charges. These amendments expand on the already effective requirement that the cover must note if an individual is incarcerated.
URAP048. Time for petitioning. Amend. This rule was previously posted for public comment to put into rule an internal process that states a rejected petition of writ of certiorari will be construed as an extension of time if filed prior to the admitted time expiring. The Committee proposes changing the new language to remove “or other filing” in new paragraph (e)(3) and change the language on extensions from “per party” to “per petition.”
Rule 27
Expanding the case type designations to be added to the cover of a brief is a great idea. I have one recommended change to the designations. The current rule requires the “defendant” in a criminal appeal to indicate whether they are incarcerated, but the new rule places that requirement on the “appellant.” Compare lines 52-54, with lines 104-05. I suggest continuing to require the defendant, rather than the appellant, to indicate incarceration status on their brief cover. Otherwise, the State will be required to indicate incarceration status on the brief cover in any State’s appeal. While the burden of determining the defendant’s current status may be small, the rule does impose a real administrative burden on the State. And defense counsel is better positioned to know their client’s status.