State v. White

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Christeena B. White,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030110-CA
 

F I L E D
(May 27, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 177

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Judith S. Atherton

Attorneys: J. Garry McAllister, Riverton, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Joanne C. Slotnik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Jackson, and Orme.

ORME, Judge:

Appellant filed a brief and reply brief pro se. When the case was fully at issue, she obtained counsel. This court granted counsel's request for oral argument, but stated that "[c]ounsel for Appellant shall confine his arguments to the issues raised in Appellant's brief." Counsel did not seek leave to file new or supplemental briefs.

Under rule 24, Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellate brief "must be concise, presented with accuracy, logically arranged with proper headings and free from burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial or scandalous matters." Utah R. App. P. 24(j). "A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and is not simply a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research." State v. Gomez, 2002 UT 120,¶20, 63 P.3d 72 (quotations and citations omitted). "An issue is inadequately briefed 'when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court.'" Smith v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370,¶8, 995 P.2d 14 (quoting State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998)), cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000).

"It is well established that a reviewing court will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed." Thomas, 961 P.2d at 304. Under rule 24, the appellant's argument "shall contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). "Implicitly, rule 24(a)(9) requires not just bald citation to authority but development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority." Thomas, 961 P.2d at 305. It is also fundamental that "[a] party challenging a fact finding must first marshal all record evidence that supports the challenged finding." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9).

"As a general rule, a party who represents [her]self will be held to the same standard of knowledge and practice as any qualified member of the bar[.]" Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207, 1213 (Utah 1983). "At the same time, we have also cautioned that 'because of [her] lack of technical knowledge of law and procedure [a lay person acting as her own attorney] should be accorded every consideration that may reasonably be indulged.'" Id. (citation omitted).

It is unclear to what extent this notion of leniency should apply in this case, where Appellant is actually represented by counsel, although she was not when she prepared her own briefs. Even if we were to be somewhat lenient in enforcing rule 24 in this case, the briefs Appellant filed simply did not make a coherent, reasoned argument. Far from being a mere "procedural misstep," Lundahl v. Quinn, 2003 UT 11,¶4, 67 P.3d 1000, the lack of meaningful analysis of applicable legal authority makes it impossible for Appellant to meet her burden of demonstrating error--much less prejudicial error. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge