City of St. George v. Hon. Gentry

2026 UT App 62
THE UTAH C OURT OF APPEALS
S T. GEORGE C ITY ,
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. O RME, R YAN M. HARRIS ,
and A MY J. O LIVER .
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
20260034-CA 	2 	2026 UT App 62
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.

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

St. George v. Honorable Eric Gentry
20260034-CA 	4 	2026 UT App 62
regarding Caruso’s challenge to the probation revocation order1
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.