State of Utah v. Andreasen, B.Annotate this Case
2001 UT App 383
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Bob J. Andreasen,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20000879-CA
F I L E D
(December 13, 2001)
Fifth District, St. George Department
The Honorable James L. Shumate
Kenneth L. Combs, St. George, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeffrey T. Colemere, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Jackson, Orme, and Thorne.
JACKSON, Associate Presiding Judge:
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. He also challenges the revocation of his probation by arguing that he received insufficient notice of the basis for the revocation.
However, Defendant failed to preserve these issues for appeal. "As a general rule, claims not raised before the trial court may not be raised on appeal. . . . [W]e have held that the preservation rule applies to every claim . . . unless a defendant can demonstrate that 'exceptional circumstances' exist or 'plain error' occurred." State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74,¶11, 10 P.3d 346; see also Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(5), (9). Defendant has not argued either of these two exceptions.(1)
Accordingly, we decline to address Defendant's arguments. See State v. Blubaugh, 904 P.2d 688, 700-01 (Utah Ct. App. 1995).
Norman H. Jackson, Associate Presiding Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge
1. Moreover, Defendant failed to meet his burden of marshaling the evidence, thus precluding our consideration of his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9); West Valley City v. Majestic Inv. Co., 818 P.2d 1311, 1315 (Utah Ct. App. 1991).