State of Utah v. Brooks

Annotate this Case
State v. Brooks

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Tim Brooks,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20010714-CA
 

F I L E D
(July 3, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 231

 

-----

Eighth District, Duchesne Department

The Honorable John R. Anderson

Attorneys: Cindy Barton-Coombs, Roosevelt, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeffrey T. Colemere, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Davis, and Thorne.

JACKSON, Presiding Judge:

Brooks raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's conviction of attempted aggravated arson in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-103 (1999). Pursuant to rule 30(d) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, we affirm.

Brooks's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is inadequately briefed. Brooks cites the standard of review applicable to ineffective assistance of counsel claims, but does not provide any legal authority or analysis specific to his allegations. We decline to make Brook's case on appeal for him. See State v. Gomez, 2002 UT 120,¶29, 63 P.3d 72.

Brooks's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is similarly lacking. Brooks fails to marshal crucial evidence on which the trial court made its decision. For instance, Brooks fails to disclose that, only minutes before buying a small amount of gasoline in a coffee cup, he told the gas station attendant that he had been "86ed," or ousted, from the Wells Club, and that she should watch because "in 45 minutes it's going to go up in smoke." Given this failure to marshal, we decline to address Brooks's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See West Valley City v. Majestic Inv. Co., 818 P.2d 1311, 1315 (Utah Ct. App. 1991).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.