Opinion
Case No. 20060667-CA.
Filed June 7, 2007. NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
Second District, Morgan Department, 055500004 The Honorable Michael D. Lyon.
Attorneys: J. Franklin Allred, Erda, for Appellant Jann L. Farris, Morgan, for Appellee.
Before Judges Bench, McHugh, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Brent E. Hill appeals his conviction of carrying a concealed dangerous weapon, a class A misdemeanor. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-504(1)(b) (Supp. 2006). We affirm.
It is well established that appellate courts will not address arguments that are inadequately briefed. See State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 304 (Utah 1998). Rule 24(a)(9) mandates that the appellant's argument contain the contentions and reasons with respect to the issues presented. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). The rule implicitly requires the development of supporting authority and reasoned analysis. See Thomas, 961 P.2d at 305. An argument will be considered inadequately briefed "when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and analysis to the reviewing court."Id.
Hill presents two issues for review but does not adequately brief either issue. Although he cites to some statutory language, he does not provide any analysis or reasoned argument to support his proposed interpretation. He presents no case law support for any point, not even to provide a general standard for statutory interpretation issues. In view of the lack of analysis, we decline to address the issues.
Affirmed.
Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge
Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge