Roosevelt City v. Gardner

Utah State Courts - Opinions - Roosevelt City v. Gardner

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Roosevelt City,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Edson G. Gardner,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20030187-CA

F I L E D
(September 5, 2003)

2003 UT App 305

-----

Eighth District, Roosevelt Department

The Honorable John R. Anderson

Attorneys: Edson G. Gardner, Fort Duchesne, Appellant Pro Se

Clark B. Allred and Clark A. McClellan, Vernal,
for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Edson G. Gardner appeals from a conviction of speeding, a class C misdemeanor. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 41-6-12(1), -46 (1998). Appellant appears to argue that Roosevelt City did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him because he was speeding in Roosevelt City, which is within the boundaries of the Uintah-Ouray reservation.

In general, this court will not address arguments that are inadequately briefed. See, e.g., State v. Lucero, 2002 UT App 135,¶8, 47 P.3d 107; see also Utah R. App. P. 24(j). Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant's brief to "contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented . . . with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). Rule 24(a)(9) "requires not just . . . citation to authority but development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority." State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998).

Appellant's brief is difficult to follow. A brief "must comply with the briefing requirements sufficiently to enable us to understand . . . what particular errors were allegedly made, [and] where in the record those errors can be found." Burns v. Summerhays, 927 P.2d 197, 199 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (ellipsis in original) (quotations and citation omitted). Further, Appellant fails to explain why the authorities he cites necessitate reversal. See id. This court will not "assume [Appellant's] burden of argument and research." Treff v. Hinckley, 2001 UT 50,¶11, 26 P.3d 212 (quotations and citations omitted).

In any event, this court has previously determined that Roosevelt City is not Indian country. See State v. Kozlowicz, 911 P.2d 1298, 1300 (Utah Ct. App. 1996); Roosevelt City v. Gardner, 858 P.2d 1004, 1005 (Utah Ct. App. 1992); see also Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 420, 114 S. Ct. 958, 970 (1994). Therefore, Roosevelt City had jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant. See Kozlowicz, 911 P.2d at 1300; Gardner, 858 P.2d at 1005.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge