A.R. v. State (In re D.H.)

A.R. v. State (In re D.H.)

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of D.H.,
a person under eighteen years of age.

______________________________

A.R.,
Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,
Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020475-CA
 

F I L E D

(April 17, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 109

 

-----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Olof A. Johansson

Attorneys: Jeffrey J. Noland, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Orme.

ORME, Judge:

"The brief of the appellant shall contain . . . citation to the record showing that [each] issue [presented for review] was preserved in the trial court; or . . . a statement of grounds for seeking review of an issue not preserved in the trial court." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(5)(A)-(B). We have long held that "absent exceptional circumstances or plain error, a party who fails to bring an issue to the trial court's attention is barred from asserting it on appeal." Brigham City v. Stuart, 2002 UT App 317,¶14, 57 P.3d 1111. Accord State v. Arguelles, 2003 UT 1,¶41, 63 P.3d 731.

Appellant failed to preserve the issue concerning application of the May 6, 2002, amendments to Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407 (2002) (the termination statute) and argues plain error only in her reply brief. "However, we will not consider matters raised for the first time in the reply brief." Coleman v. Stevens, 2000 UT 98,¶9, 17 P.3d 1122. Therefore, we decline to address this claim. See In re S.Y., 2003 UT App 66,¶¶12-14, 468 Utah Adv. Rep. 10 (declining to address the applicability of the amended termination statute where appellant failed to preserve issue below or argue plain error or exceptional circumstances on appeal).

We have considered Appellant's insufficiency of the evidence argument and determined it to be without merit. We decline to address it further. See, e.g., State v. Allen, 839 P.2d 291, 303 (Utah 1992) (noting that appellate courts need not "analyze and address in writing every issue or claim raised").

Affirmed.

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge