State of Utah, v. Tunzi

This opinion is subject to revision before final
publication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Petitioner,
v.
Joseph P. Tunzi,
Defendant and Respondent.
No. 20010676
F I L E D
December 10, 2002
2002 UT 119
---
Third District, Salt Lake
The Honorable Judith S. Atherton
Attorneys:
Mark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., J. Frederic Voros, Jr., Asst. Att'y Gen., Bryon F.
Burmester, Salt Lake City, for petitioner
Joan C. Watt, John O'Connell, Salt Lake City, for respondent
---
On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals
WILKINS, Justice:
¶1 We granted the State's petition for certiorari to review the court of appeals'
decision in State v. Tunzi, 2001 UT App 224, 31 P.3d 588, which interpreted Utah
Code Ann. section 78-3a-602 (1996) and vacated the district court's sentence,
remanding Tunzi's case to juvenile court for further proceedings. We reverse.

BACKGROUND
¶2 Tunzi was bound over to district court by the juvenile court under the then-
current version of section 78-3a-602 to stand trial as an adult for the charge of
attempted murder. Tunzi was acquitted of the charge of attempted murder, but was
found guilty of aggravated assault. He argued before the district court that it was
required to remand his case to the juvenile court because he was acquitted of the
charge for which he was bound over. The court refused to remand and Tunzi
appealed. Because of problems with the record, Tunzi's conviction was reversed
and the case remanded for new a trial.
¶3 After remand, Tunzi agreed to plead guilty to aggravated assault and was
sentenced. Tunzi appealed the sentence to the court of appeals, arguing again that
the district court was bound to remand his case to juvenile court for any
proceedings necessary after the finding of guilt for aggravated assault. The court of
appeals reversed, holding that section 78-3a-602(10) requires remand to the
juvenile court when a youthful offender is acquitted of the specific charge for which
he was bound over, even when he is convicted of another charge arising from the
same criminal episode.
ANALYSIS
¶4 The controlling issue in this case is whether, under the then-existing version of
section 78-3a-602, the district court loses jurisdiction over a minor who is acquitted
of the charge for which he was bound over by the juvenile court but is convicted of
a different offense arising from the same criminal episode. Our analysis applies
only to the 1996 statute, not to subsequent amendments, and is controlled by the
case of State v. S.H., 2002 UT 118, _ P.3d _. As is fully explained in S.H., we have
held that the plain language of section 78-3a-602(10) allows the district court to
retain jurisdiction over minors such as Tunzi who are found guilty of charges arising
from the same criminal episode as that for which they are bound over. Id. at ¶ 22.
Such is the case here. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals and affirm the
sentence imposed by the district court.
---
¶5 Chief Justice Durham, Associate Chief Justice Durrant, Justice Howe, and
Justice Russon concur in Justice Wilkins' opinion.