Roosevelt City v. Slim

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Roosevelt City,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

David P. Slim,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20021031-CA
 

F I L E D
(June 26, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 220

-----

Eighth District, Vernal Department

The Honorable Lynn A. Payne

Attorneys: David P. Slim, Roosevelt, Appellant Pro Se

Clark B. Allred, Vernal, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant David Slim appeals his conviction for driving with a defective muffler, a violation of Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-147 (1998).

Slim argues, as he did in a similar appeal in this court (Case No. 20020768), that the City of Roosevelt (the City) did not prove, and in fact did not have, jurisdiction over him because he is an enrolled tribal member within the boundaries of a tribal reservation. In this court's previous decision in the earlier referenced case, issued May 8, 2003, we determined that

While Slim's briefs are replete with citations to case law, he has made no attempt to demonstrate how that authority supports his position. In fact, we have found Slim's arguments difficult, if not impossible, to follow. Therefore, because Slim has failed to provide any substantive analysis for his claim, essentially 'dump[ing] the burden of argument and research' on this court, State v. Gamblin, 2000 UT 44,¶6, 1 P.3d 1108
(quotations and citations omitted), we affirm his conviction.

Roosevelt City v. Slim, 2003 UT App 135.

Slim's brief, in this case, makes the same arguments and is deficient in the same respect. The only argument Slim asserts that is different from the previous case is that Roosevelt City's officer did not have authority to "issue charges" outside his jurisdiction. However, he does not demonstrate that the officer was acting outside the jurisdiction and also fails to provide substantive legal analysis for the claim.

The City argues, as in the previous appeal, that it should be awarded costs incurred in defending this appeal because the appeal is frivolous and deals with settled law. The City's request for costs and legal fees is denied for the same reason stated by this court in the previous appeal. Rule 33 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure does not allow for damages in a first appeal of right in a criminal case. Slim's appeal is a first appeal of right from a criminal conviction and, therefore, the City is not entitled to damages.

The conviction is affirmed.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge