Swasey v. Farrer

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Carrie Swasey,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

Kerry Farrer,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040137-CA
 

F I L E D
(January 21, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 21

-----

Eighth District, Roosevelt Department

The Honorable John R. Anderson

Attorneys: Cleve Hatch, Vernal, for Appellant

-----

Before Judges Davis, Jackson, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

    Kerry Farrer appeals from the trial court's issuance of a permanent protective order.

    Farrer asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to allow his witnesses to testify at the protective order hearing and that the trial court lacked sufficient grounds for the protective order. He also asserts that his right to bear arms has been violated without due process. However, because his brief wholly fails to comply with rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, we decline to address Farrer's issues on appeal. See Phillips v. Hatfield, 904 P.2d 1108, 1109 (Utah Ct. App. 1995).

    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." State v. Sloan, 2003 UT App 170,¶13, 72 P.3d 138.

    Farrer's brief sets forth a few paragraphs of conclusory statements with little or no legal analysis on the issues presented. He does not present the standards for issuing protective orders, nor any discussion of how the trial court failed to meet the standards. The issues are inadequately briefed, shifting the burden of research and argument to this court. This court will not address issues inadequately briefed. See MacKay v. Hardy, 973 P.2d 941, 947-48 (Utah 1998). We therefore affirm the order of the trial court.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge