LOGAN – Interim County Attorney Dane Murray has denied any wrongdoing in a recent dismissal of a lawsuit that challenged Cache County’s legal authority to prosecute criminal cases.
In an April 7 press release, local attorney Chris Daines had accused Murray of providing “hallucinated citations” to the First District Court that resulted in a ruling from Judge Angela Fonnesbeck favoring Cache County.
“That is false,” Murray responded. “The County did not provide any filing to Judge Fonnesbeck to make her decision. (The lawsuit) was dismissed before the State was asked to respond pursuant to Rule 65B.”
“That rule does not allow for a response by the opposing party until after the Court makes a finding that the petition is not frivolous,” he added.
Along with local attorney J. Brett Chambers, Murray and Daines are locked in a three-way race for the Cache County Republican nomination to replace former County Attorney Taylor Sorensen in the upcoming election in November.
That nod will be awarded by delegates at the Cache County Republican Nominating Convention on Saturday, April 11 at Ridgeline High School in Millville.
Under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, a person may petition the court for extraordinary relief on any ground set forth in Rule 65B, including restraint of personal liberty.
On Mar. 31, Fonnesbeck issued a rule that dismissed a lawsuit against Cache County Sheriff Chad Jensen that sought the release of an inmate being held in the County Jail.
“Because the Petitioner’s core legal theory is factually and legally baseless under a plain reading of the Utah Code and Cache County Code, the claim of illegal restraint is frivolous on its face,” Fonnesbeck wrote in her decision.
Earlier this week, Daines alleged that Fonnesbeck’s decision was based in part on a false quotation from an out-of-date portion of the county code supplied by Murray, which the interim county attorney categorically denies.
“In this case, the Court found the petition frivolous and ordered its dismissal,” he argues. “Parties do not communicate with judges outside of court filings and the County filed no response in this case …”
Following that ruling, Murray issued a statement praising Fonnesbeck’s decision.
“The court’s ruling brings a swift end to a legal challenge that sought to characterize the detention of a criminal defendant as unlawful based on the claim that the Cache County Attorney’s Office has lacked the legal authority to prosecute crimes going back to January 2025,” Murray wrote.
Since early this year, Daines has contended that, due to that revision of the Cache County Code dating back in January of 2025, the county is lacking a formal district attorney and therefore cannot legally prosecute criminal cases.
Daines recent criticism of Murray focused on Section 2.16.010 of the Cache County Code, a portion of code that the local attorney says no longer exists in the current County Code.
“The portion of law referenced by Mr. Daines is part of the County Organic Act,” Murray counters, “not the County Code.
“The section cited by Judge Fonnesbeck’s order is incorrect,” he acknowledged, “but it does exist.”