Ogden City v. Arvizu

Ogden City v. Arvizu

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Ogden City,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Victor R. Arvizu,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040688-CA
 

F I L E D
(May 19, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 217

 

-----

Second District, Ogden Department, 041901113

The Honorable Ernie W. Jones

Attorneys: Victor R. Arvizu, Ogden, Appellant Pro Se

-----

Before Judges Davis, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    Victor R. Arvizu appeals the judgment of the district court. We affirm on the basis that Arvizu's claims are inadequately briefed.

    "It is well established that a reviewing court will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed." State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 304 (Utah 1998); see also Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305, 313 (Utah 1998) (declining to address appellant's claim on appeal due to inadequate analysis); State v. Herrera, 895 P.2d 359, 368 n.5 (Utah 1995) (refusing to address appellant's undeveloped argument).

    In deciding whether an argument has been adequately briefed, we look to the standard set forth in rule 24(a)(9) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Thomas, 961 P.2d at 304. Rule 24(a)(9) states that the argument in the appellant's brief "shall contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, including the grounds for reviewing any issue not preserved in the trial court, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). Compliance with this rule "is mandatory, and failure to conform to these requirements may carry serious consequences. For example, 'briefs which are not in compliance may be disregarded or stricken, on motion or sua sponte by the court.'" Beehive Tel. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah, 2004 UT 18,¶12, 89 P.3d 131 (quoting Utah R. App. P. 24(j)).

    Arvizu's brief fails to comply with rule 24(a)(9). Arvizu sets forth various conclusions without any argument or support whatsoever. For instance, Arvizu alleges that the district court "was clearly erroneous" when it denied Arvizu's "motion for objection to the legality of arrest," but does not provide any explanation as to how or why the district court erred. The same is true regarding each of the remaining arguments set forth in Arvizu's brief.

    In short, Arvizu's claims are "devoid of any 'meaningful analysis.'" State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234,¶12, 852 P.3d 467 (quoting State v. Marquez, 2002 UT App 127,¶10, 54 P.3d 637). "Implicitly, rule 24(a)(9) requires not just bald citation to authority but development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority. We have previously stated that this court is not 'a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.'" Thomas, 961 P.2d at 304 (quoting State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 450 (Utah 1988)).

    Arvizu quotes a few constitutional and other statutory provisions, but fails to analyze "what this authority requires and . . . how the facts of [his] case satisfy these requirements." Id. at 305. He simply does not present any meaningful analysis dealing with the application of any of these citations to this case. See State v. Helmick, 2000 UT 70,¶7, 9 P.3d 164.

    "'To 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.'" State v. Lucero, 2002 UT App 135,¶13, 47 P.3d 107 (alteration in original) (quoting Burns v. Summerhays, 927 P.2d 197, 199 (Utah Ct. App. 1996)).

    Arvizu's brief fails to answer these questions. When a party does not offer any meaningful analysis regarding a claim, we decline to reach the merits. See Thomas, 961 P.2d at 305. Because Arvizu's brief utterly fails to explain why this court
should address--let alone reverse--the district court decision, we decline to reach the merits of Arvizu's claims.

    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge