In State v. Stirba, 972 P.2d 918 (Utah Ct. App. 1998), the court of appeals concluded that a district court had improperly interpreted the Utah Code in concluding that a crime victim was not entitled to additional restitution if that victim had already received a recovery from a personally held insurance policy. 972 P.2d at 923. Despite identifying this mistake of law, the court of appeals declined to grant relief, and stated that "a simple mistake of law does not qualify as the kind of gross and flagrant abuse of discretion necessary for an extraordinary writ to issue." Id. In Utah County v. Alexanderson, 2003 UT App 153, 71 P.3d 621, vacated, 2005 UT 67, 123 P.3d 414, the court of appeals took this line of reasoning one step further and expressly stated what State v. Stirba implied. Specifically, Alexanderson read State v. Stirba as prohibiting extraordinary relief in any rule 65B proceeding, whether a statutory prohibition on appeal is present or not, absent a showing that the lower tribunal committed a gross and flagrant abuse of discretion.