Opinion
Case No. 20061100-CA.
Filed June 14, 2007. Not For Official Publication.
Fourth District, Fillmore Department, 061700157 The Honorable Donald J. Eyre Jr.
James K. Slavens, Fillmore, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeanne B. Inouye, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Bench, McHugh, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Seaborn R. Mack appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Mack sought probation pursuant to Utah Code section 76-5-406.5, which specifies the requirements for probation to be considered for a perpetrator of certain sex crimes against children. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-406.5 (Supp. 2006). The trial court determined that he was not eligible for probation.
To be eligible for probation under section 76-5-406.5, a defendant must show, among other things, that the victim did not suffer "severe psychological harm." Id. § 76-5-406.5(1)(b). Mack asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the victim suffered severe psychological harm because the harm she suffered was typical for victims of this type of abuse. He contends that "severe" should be interpreted as "atypical." Mack merely asserts his premise but does not adequately brief the issue, thus preventing this court from addressing the issue on its merits.
Furthermore, it is Mack's burden to show that he did not cause severe psychological harm. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-406.5(5) (Supp. 2006). Mack presented no evidence to support such a finding. On the contrary, the trial court had ample evidence before it to determine that the victim suffered severe psychological harm. The testimony established that the victim had "classic" post traumatic stress syndrome and would likely require therapy into adulthood. Her behaviors and emotional state were greatly disrupted, and her life had changed. The trial court did not err in finding severe psychological harm.
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. Mack cites no authority for his primary contention and provides no reasoned argument to support his proposed definition of a statutory term. He does not make any kind of statutory interpretation argument or provide the standards for statutory construction. In sum, the issue is inadequately briefed. In view of the lack of analysis, we decline to address the issue.
Mack's sole citation to authority, State v. Johnson, 856 P.2d 1064 (Utah 1993), is used to support his contention that the term "severe" must be given significance. This does not, however, equate with interpreting severe as meaning more harm than usual. Contrary to Mack's position, Johnson may be read as indicating that each victim must be evaluated individually because "the nature and extent of the harm varies with each victim and the circumstances of the crime." Id. at 1070. There is no support in Johnson for the proposition that "severe" means a measure against a baseline, particularly when the baseline may be severe harm given the nature of the offense.
Affirmed.
Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge.
Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge.
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge.