State of Utah v. Garcia

Annotate this Case
State v. Gracia. Filed September 2, 1999 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Enrique Gracia,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 981299-CA

F I L E D
September 2, 1999
  1999 UT App 253 -----

Fourth District, Provo Department
The Honorable Lynn W. Davis

Attorneys:
Richard P. Gale, Provo, for Appellant
Jan Graham and J. Frederic Voros, Jr., Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis.

DAVIS, Judge:

Defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence regarding the urinalysis was improperly admitted. However, even if that evidence was improperly before the jury, we find that any error was harmless because of the other ample evidence linking defendant to the cocaine-filled balloons.(1) See State v. Seale, 853 P.2d 862, 874 (Utah 1993); State v. Davis, 965 P.2d 525, 538 (Utah Ct. App. 1998).

Here, three eyewitnesses testified that they saw defendant throw the cocaine-filled balloons into the toilet. A spoon found in defendant's bedroom tested positive for cocaine residue. Other items retrieved from defendant's bedroom were consistent with cocaine use. Furthermore, defendant testified that he had recently used cocaine.(2) Thus, based upon the foregoing, not only was the urinalysis not a critical link to defendant's ownership of the drugs, defendant's own testimony demonstrated that the results of the urinalysis were correct.

Defendant's conviction is affirmed.
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 

______________________________

Judith M. Billings, Judge

1. Although defendant was charged with possessing or using cocaine, defendant's argument on appeal is limited to the admission of the urinalysis to link defendant to the cocaine in the balloons and spoon.

2. In his brief, defendant argues he was forced to testify based on the trial court's admission of the urinalysis. However, his one-line argument with no legal analysis or citation to legal authority is insufficient to warrant our analysis. See State v. Maguire, 975 P.2d 476, 480 (Utah Ct. App. 1999). Moreover, we find this self-serving claim unpersuasive considering the jury venire was told that defendant would be testifying on his own behalf before the issue concerning the urinalysis arose.