South Ogden City v. Hartigan

----ooOoo----

South Ogden City,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Craig Hartigan,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990471-CA

F I L E D
May 18, 2000 2000 UT App 149  -----

Second District, Ogden Department
The Honorable Pamela G. Heffernan

Attorneys:
Craig Hartigan, South Ogden, Appellant Pro Se
Kenneth D. Bradshaw, South Ogden, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals his conviction of making an improper right turn. We affirm.

Appellant contends that the City violated his constitutional rights by amending the charge to an infraction so as to deprive him of his right to a jury trial. Appellant's contention is without merit. This court has held that a defendant has no constitutional right to a jury trial when he faces no possibility of jail time. See West Valley City v. McDonald, 948 P.2d 371, 374 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). Further, the McDonald court upheld the trial court's decision to allow the prosecutor to reduce the charge from a class C misdemeanor to an infraction: "By accepting the amended information before trial, the trial court in effect agreed not to consider jail time as a possible sentence for McDonald." Id. Because appellant was legitimately charged with an infraction and faced no possibility of jail time, he was not entitled to a jury trial.

Appellant also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence from a bench trial conviction, this court will set aside the conviction only if it is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if the court otherwise reaches a definite and firm belief that a mistake has been made. See State v. Strieby, 790 P.2d 98, 100 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). Determinations regarding credibility especially are left to the trial court. See State v. Wright, 744 P.2d 315, 317 (Utah Ct. App. 1987). In reviewing a bench conviction, the appellate court requires that the weight of the evidence, discounting questions of credibility and demeanor, not oppose the conviction. See State v. Goodman, 763 P.2d 786, 787 (Utah 1988).

The weight of the evidence, discounting questions of credibility, is sufficient to support the conclusion that appellant made an improper right turn by not approaching the turn as close as practicable to the right hand curb. The trial court was free to believe the testimony of the City's witnesses over that of appellant's. The trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of the parties. See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936 (Utah 1994).

Appellant argues that the trial court should not have believed the testimony of the City's expert witness because he misinterpreted and ignored relevant law and thereby drew erroneous conclusions, and should not have believed the police report because it was "bogus." Appellant wholly fails to demonstrate how the expert witness misconstrued relevant law or in what respect his expert conclusions were erroneous, or in what respect the police report was materially flawed. Accordingly, we decline to address the issues, as this court will not consider arguments that are not adequately supported by authority and analysis. See, e.g., State v. Montoya, 937 P.2d 145 (Utah Ct. App. 1997); City of Orem v. Henrie, 868 P.2d 1384 (Utah Ct. App. 1994); State v. Scheel, 823 P.2d 470 (Utah Ct. App. 1991).

Affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge