State v. Butler

State v. Butler

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Kayla Butler,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040317-CA
 

F I L E D
(February 25, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 79

 

-----

Fourth District, Nephi Department

The Honorable Donald J. Eyre

Attorneys: James K. Slavens, Fillmore, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Karen A. Klucznik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Davis, Jackson, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

    Kayla Butler appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty pleas.

    Butler asserts on appeal that her pleas were not knowing and voluntary because she did not know at the time that one of the witnesses at her preliminary hearing was under the influence of drugs when he testified. However, because Butler's brief fails to comply with rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, we decline to address the issue on appeal. See State v. Sloan, 2003 UT App 170,¶13, 72 P.3d 138.

    "It is well established that Utah appellate courts will not consider claims that are inadequately briefed." State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234,¶8, 52 P.3d 467. Rule 24 requires that a brief provide an argument section. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). "The argument shall 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." Id. "Briefs must contain reasoned analysis based upon relevant legal authority. An issue is inadequately briefed when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court." Sloan, 2003 UT App 170 at ¶13.

    Butler fails to provide any meaningful legal analysis. Her argument consists of conclusory allegations that her pleas were not knowing and voluntary. Her single paragraph argument merely states her position without explaining why this court should find error. "When a party fails to offer any meaningful analysis regarding a claim, we decline to reach the merits." Garner, 2002 UT App 234 at ¶12.

    Accordingly, the trial court's denial of Butler's motion to withdraw her pleas is affirmed.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

-----

ORME, Judge (dissenting):

    I respectfully dissent. Defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in this first appeal of right in a criminal case. Obviously she has not received it if the brief filed falls so far short of our rule on briefing that we cannot even treat the merits of the appeal. Rather than have Defendant bear the onus of counsel's dereliction of duty, it seems to me that we should instead strike the brief and require that a brief in compliance with the rule be filed. Of course we should simultaneously require that counsel not charge or collect any fee for the unacceptable brief.

    In so urging, I recognize that in many, many cases we have done exactly what my colleagues believe is appropriate in this case. In at least a handful of other cases, however, we have taken measured steps to ensure our rule is complied with and that the promise of effective assistance by appellate counsel is not a meaningless one. See, e.g., Ogden City v. Stites, 2002 UT App 357, 58 P.3d 865 (mem.) (discharging counsel and remanding for appointment of new counsel and filing of new brief where inadequate Anders brief was stricken and counsel was given additional time to file proper brief but brief eventually filed was "wholly inadequate"); State v. Spinks, No. 20010985-CA (Utah Ct. App. May 7, 2002) (order striking brief) (striking purported Anders brief and requiring proper brief to be filed within thirty days); State v. Steiger, No. 981895-CA (Utah Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2000) (order discharging counsel) (discharging counsel who failed to file amended or supplemental brief to cure deficiencies in brief filed by predecessor counsel and remanding "for the prompt appointment of new counsel for appellant, which counsel . . . shall be directed to review the record and confer with appellant and file a new brief on behalf of appellant").

    I recognize that consistently proceeding in the manner I propose will entail new burdens and changed expectations--but only in the short term. Once the word is out that this court will not abide a level of representation below that mandated by the United States Constitution and will require repeated rebriefing until counsel succeeds in filing a brief that is sufficient to be considered by the court--and that all of counsel's work on the inadequate briefs will be free of charge--I suspect we will no longer routinely see briefs in criminal cases that are not in compliance with the terms of our rules and the mandate of the Constitution.

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge