Roosevelt City v. Gardner

• Decision Date: 05 September 2003
• Docket Number: Case No. 20030187-CA.
• Parties: Roosevelt City, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Edson G. Gardner, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

Page 1

Roosevelt City, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Edson G. Gardner, Defendant and Appellant.

Case No. 20030187-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed September 5, 2003.

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.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Page 2

"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.