Back to the Indian Law Bulletins

(Cite as: 2003 WL 21297349 (Utah App.))

Court of Appeals of Utah.

ROOSEVELT CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee,


David SLIM, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20020768-CA.

May 8, 2003.

Eighth District, Roosevelt Department; The Honorable John R. Anderson.

David Slim, Roosevelt, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Before Judges JACKSON, BENCH, and THORNE.

MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication)

THORNE, Judge:

*1 Defendant David Slim appeals his conviction for driving with a defective muffler, a violation of Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-147 (1998).

Slim argues that the City of Roosevelt (the City) did not prove, and in fact did not have, jurisdiction over him because he is an enrolled tribal member within the boundaries of a tribal reservation . [FN1] However, " '[i]t is well established that a reviewing court will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed.' " State v. Lucero, 2002 UT App 135,¶ 8, 47 P.3d 107 (citation omitted); see also Utah R.App. P. 24.

FN1. Because this case involved issues of possible importance to the tribe, the Ute Tribe was invited to file an Amicus Curiae brief. The Tribe declined; however, it asked to be considered in future cases that involve jurisdictional issues of possible importance to the Tribe.

[T]o permit meaningful appellate review, briefs must comply with the briefing requirements sufficiently to enable us to understand ... what particular errors were allegedly made, where in the record those errors can be found, and why, under applicable authorities, those errors are material ones necessitating reversal or other relief.

Burns v. Summerhays, 927 P.2d 197, 199 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (quotations and citations omitted). While Slim's briefs are replete with citations to case law, he has made no attempt to demonstrate how that authority supports his position. In fact, we have found Slim's arguments difficult, if not impossible, to follow. Therefore, because Slim has failed to provide any substantive legal analysis for his claim, essentially "dump[ing] the burden of argument and research" on this court, State v. Gamblin, 2000 UT 44,¶ 6, 1 P.3d 1108 (quotations and citations omitted), we affirm his conviction.

The City argues that Slim's appeal deals only with settled law and is frivolous; therefore, the City argues it should be awarded the costs it has incurred in defending this appeal. However, the City's argument ignores the plain language of rule 33 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The City relies on a portion of rule 33 that states "if the court determines that a [n] ... appeal taken under these rules is either frivolous or for delay, it shall award just damages, which may include single or double costs." Utah R.App. P. 33. However, the City ignores the clause immediately preceding the quoted language, wherein the rule states "[e]xcept in a first appeal of right in a criminal case ... [the court] shall award just damages...." Id. Because Slim's appeal is a first appeal of right taken from a criminal conviction, it is clearly not subject to damages under rule 33. Thus, the City's request for damages is denied.