WVC v. Jacobs

----ooOoo----

West Valley City,
Respondent and Appellee,

v.

Bernie Jacobs,
Petitioner and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990978-CA

F I L E D
June 2, 2000
-----

Third District, West Valley Department
The Honorable Denise P. Lindberg

Attorneys:
Bernie Jacobs, West Valley City, Appellant Pro Se
Elliot R. Lawrence, West Valley City, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Jacobs petitioned the district court to review the administrative hearing officer's decision pursuant to West Valley City Municipal Code § 10-2-601(3); see also Utah Code Ann. § 78-3-4 (1999) (giving general jurisdiction to district courts), -3(2)(b)(i) (giving court of appeals jurisdiction over district court review of "adjudicative proceedings of agencies of political subdivisions of the state or other local agencies"). According to the municipal code, a district court judge is to "[r]eview the record to determine whether or not the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal." Id. at 10-2-601 (3)(b). A hearing before the district court is not contemplated by section 601 and no hearing was held. Thus, there was no transcript from the district court and Jacobs's complaint about the city's alleged failure to produce a transcript is without merit.(1)

West Valley City Municipal Code § 10-2-105 states that "[i]t is prima facie evidence that the violation remains on the property" unless an inspection is conducted on the property. Jacobs contends he cleaned up his yard in response to the city's notice of violations, but refuses to allow city officials to inspect his property. Thus, he is presumed to be in violation and the district court's decision is correct.

Jacobs now complains that his constitutional rights have been violated. However, for us to consider such a claim, it must have been fully argued below. See State v. Bobo, 803 P.2d 1268, 1272-73 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (stating trial court is proper forum in which to commence thoughtful and probing analysis of constitutional interpretation). Jacobs's general assertion that he felt his rights had been violated was not enough to preserve the issue for our consideration on appeal.

Accordingly, the trial court is affirmed.
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge

1. There was a transcript of the administrative hearing which was transcribed and then reviewed by the district court.