court would lack authority to review whether the tr ror must first present the issue to the trial court through the appropriate post-judgment motion prior to seeking appellate review. Again, the proper course for an aggrieved party to follow would be to make a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, see Utah R.Civ.P. 60(b)(7) (allowing a motion to be made on the basis of “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment”), or a motion for a new trial, or to amend or alter the judgment, pursuant to Rule 59. See Utah R.Civ.P. 59(a)(5), (a)(6),. (a)(7) (indicating that excessive damages, insufficient evidence, or error in law are proper grounds for such a motion); see also Moon Lake Elec. Ass’n v. Ultrasystems W. Constructors, 767 P.2d 125, 127-28 (Utah App.1988) (<HOLDING>). The aggrieved party could then appeal from a
holding that defendant was procedurally barred from raising issue on appeal where issue was listed as grounds in motion for new trial holding that defendant waived ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsels failure to emphasize certain evidence where amended motion for new trial did not assert claim of ineffectiveness on that ground and no argument related to the asserted ground was made at the motion for new trial hearing holding that the movant was not entitled to new trial under rule 59 based on a defense which if properly placed in issue would have affected the course of the jury trial holding that rule 59 motion for new trial was procedurally allowable even in case where no trial had yet been held holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial by operation of law because motion was not properly presented even though a notice of presentment was filed and the docket sheet contained an entry for the motion having been filed