Ogden City, v. Vera

----ooOoo----

Ogden City,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Armando C. Vera,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010937-CA

F I L E D
May 2, 2002 2002 UT App 136 -----

Second District, Ogden Department
The Honorable W. Brent West

Attorneys:
Armando C. Vera, Ogden, Appellant Pro Se
Michael S. Junk, Ogden, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Armando Vera appeals his convictions of two class B misdemeanor zoning ordinance violations. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary affirmance pursuant to Rule 10(e) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.

"An appellate court's 'review is . . . limited to the evidence contained in the record on appeal.'" State v. Pliego, 1999 UT 8,¶7, 974 P.2d 279 (quoting Wilderness Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. Chapman, 699 P.2d 766, 768 (Utah 1985)). "Parties claiming error below and seeking appellate review have the duty and responsibility to support their allegations with an adequate record." State v. Wetzel, 868 P.2d 64, 67 (Utah 1993); see also Utah R. App. P. 11(e). When faced with "an inadequate record on appeal, [we] must assume the regularity of the proceedings below." State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam); see also State v. Blubaugh, 904 P.2d 688, 699 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (assuming regularity of proceedings below because appellant failed to include transcript).

The record in this case is inadequate to support Vera's allegations on appeal because he has not provided a transcript for review. Without the transcript, "'defendant's assignment of error stands as a unilateral allegation which the reviewing court has no power to determine. [An appellate court] simply cannot rule on a question which depends for its existence upon alleged facts unsupported by the record.'" State v. Penman, 964 P.2d 1157, 1162 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (quoting State v. Wulffenstein, 657 P.2d 289, 293 (Utah 1982)).

In the absence of a transcript, the issues Vera raises on appeal are unsupported in the record and we must presume the correctness of the proceedings below. See Wetzel, 868 P.2d at 67; Blubaugh, 904 P.2d at 699. Accordingly, we grant the sua sponte motion and affirm the district court's judgment.
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Presiding Judge
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge