State of Utah v. Cook

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Allen Cook,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010832-CA

F I L E D
September 26, 2002 2002 UT App 304 -----

First District, Logan Department
The Honorable Clint S. Judkins

Attorneys:
Allen Cook, North Logan, Appellant Pro Se
Lee Edwards, Logan, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Davis, Greenwood, and Thorne.
THORNE, Judge:

Defendant Allen Cook appeals from his conviction of Theft by Deception, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-405 (1999). We affirm.

"When considering arguments on appeal, we look to the requirements of rule 24 [of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure] to determine whether an appellant has adequately briefed the issues." State v. Lucero, 2002 UT App 135,¶9, 47 P.3d 107. Here, while articulately drafted, Cook's brief in no way comports with the rule. His brief contains no statement of the issues presented for our review, no standard of review to apply to any issue that might be found within his brief, nor a single citation to either case law or statutory authority that might assist us in determining the nature of his claim. Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant to include each of these missing elements when presenting an argument on appeal. Absent compliance with this rule, we have consistently refused to review an appellant's issues, instead summarily affirming whatever trial court decision the appellant has challenged. See Burns v. Summerhays, 927 P.2d 197, 198-99 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (listing and describing a number of cases that were dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of rule 24). [T]o permit meaningful appellate review, briefs must comply with the briefing requirements sufficiently to "enable us to understand . . . what particular errors were allegedly made, where in the record those errors can be found, and why, under applicable authorities, those errors are material ones necessitating reversal or other relief." Id. at 199 (ellipsis in original) (quoting Demetropoulos v. Vreeken, 754 P.2d 960, 962 (Utah Ct. App. 1988)).

Here, in failing to comply with rule 24, Cook asks this court to divert limited resources "'from substantive work' into less productive tasks," such as preparing his case for review. Demetropoulos, 754 P.2d at 961 (citation omitted). It is inappropriate for us to assume the role of Cook's attorney or legal advisor. SeeSmith v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370,¶9, 995 P.2d 14, cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289. Therefore, because Cook has failed to provide an adequate statement of the issues, legal analysis, or the legal authority necessary to support his appeal, we are unable to review his claims.

Accordingly, we affirm Cook's conviction.
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge