State v. Gamblin, No. 981548.

• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WILKINS, Justice.
• Citation: 2000 UT 44,1 P.3d 1108
• Parties: STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. James Richard GAMBLIN, Defendant and Appellant.
• Decision Date: 19 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 981548.

1 P.3d 1108
2000 UT 44

STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
James Richard GAMBLIN, Defendant and Appellant

No. 981548.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 19, 2000.

1 P.3d 1110

Jan Graham, Att'y Gen., J. Frederic Voros, Jr., Marian Decker, Asst. Att'ys Gen., Marsha Atkin, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff

James W. Claflin, Jr., Sandy, for defendant.

WILKINS, Justice.

¶ 1 Defendant James Richard Gamblin appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to attempted rape, a first degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-5-402 and 76-4-102(2) (1999). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Defendant was initially charged with four counts of rape. Following plea negotiations, the State dropped three of the counts and defendant signed a plea statement and pleaded guilty to a single count of attempted rape.

¶ 3 Seven days after the plea hearing, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under section 77-13-6 of the Utah Code. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-13-6(2) (1999). He asserted that good cause existed to withdraw his plea under this statute for two reasons. First, defendant argued his plea was entered without full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of the plea because he intended to enter a guilty plea under Rule 11(h) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure rather than a "straight" guilty plea with alternative amended charges. Second, defendant argued he felt compelled to enter his guilty plea because he thought the trial court judge was biased against him.

¶ 4 After a hearing on defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, the trial court made several findings of fact. Based on those findings, the trial court concluded that defendant's guilty plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that no cause existed upon which to grant defendant's motion to withdraw. Defendant now appeals the trial court's denial of his motion.

ANALYSIS

I. INADEQUATE BRIEFING

¶ 5 The State argues that defendant has inadequately briefed his arguments on appeal. We address this argument first.

¶ 6 Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure sets forth the requirements of an appellant's brief. One requirement is that the brief set forth an argument. That argument "shall contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, including the grounds for reviewing any issue not preserved in the trial court, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." Utah R.App. P. 24(a)(9). As we have too often had occasion to explain, "this court is not `"a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research."'" State v. Jaeger, 1999 UT 1, ¶ 31, 973 P.2d 404 (citations omitted); see also MacKay v. Hardy, 973 P.2d 941, 948 n. 9 (Utah 1998) (setting forth numerous examples of cases of inadequate briefing).

¶ 7 Defendant's brief fails to adequately set forth an argument as required by Rule 24(a)(9) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Instead of providing this court with meaningful legal analysis, defendant's brief merely contains one or two sentences stating his argument generally, quotes favorable portions of the record, and then broadly

1 P.3d 1111

concludes that he is entitled to relief. Defendant cites State v. Vasilacopulos, 756 P.2d 92 (Utah Ct.App.1988), and State v. Thorup, 841 P.2d 746 (Utah Ct.App.1992), as authority for his arguments, but he does not analyze these cases to demonstrate that his contentions compel reversal of the trial court's ruling. Rather, defendant's brief simply cites to these cases as support for his general argument that the trial court's erroneous findings would have constituted good cause for defendant to withdraw his guilty plea

¶ 8 Briefs that do not comply with rule 24 "may be disregarded or stricken, on motion or sua sponte by the court." Utah R.App. P. 24(j)¹; see, e.g., Jaeger, 1999 UT 1 at ¶ 31, 973 P.2d 404 (declining to address arguments because brief failed to comply adequately with rule 24); MacKay, 973 P.2d at 949 (same). However, we are not obligated to strike or disregard a marginal or inadequate brief, and in this case we choose to further address defendant's arguments in the interests of justice.

II. GOOD CAUSE

¶ 9 Defendant argues the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In Utah, "[a] plea of guilty . . ....