Opinion
No. 5856
06-20-2012
WILLIAM B. MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Caitlin Shortell, Shortell Gardner LLC, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Mary A. Gilson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and John J. Burns, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law.
Court of Appeals No. A-10722
Trial Court No. 1KE-09-878 Cr
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, Ketchikan, Trevor N. Stephens, Judge.
Appearances: Caitlin Shortell, Shortell Gardner LLC, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Mary A. Gilson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and John J. Burns, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
PER CURIAM.
William B. Martin appeals his conviction for misdemeanor driving under the influence, AS 28.35.030(a). We affirm Martin's conviction because all of his appellate claims are inadequately briefed.
Martin's descriptions of the facts underlying his claims are so nebulous and incomplete that the basis of his claims cannot readily be discerned. Moreover, in those few places where Martin does provide specific details of the trial court proceedings, he often affirmatively mischaracterizes the record.
Martin's assertions concerning the applicable law are mostly conclusory, and he often omits discussion of relevant Alaska precedents. In those instances where Martin does discuss Alaska precedent, the precedent is often contrary to his claims. In two instances, Martin asks us to overrule precedent, but without adequate explanation of why, under the doctrine of stare decisis, departure from that precedent is justified.
When a litigant fails to adequately brief an appellate claim, that claim is waived. We conclude that all of Martin's claims are waived for inadequate briefing, and we therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
See, e.g., Kingery v. Barrett, 249 P.3d 275, 285 (Alaska 2011); Martinson v. Arco Alaska, Inc., 989 P.2d 733, 737-38 (Alaska 1999); City of Fairbanks v. Rice, 20 P.3d 1097, 1106 (Alaska 2000); Buckwalter v. State, 23 P.3d 81, 88 (Alaska App. 2001); Vickers v. State, 175 P.3d 1280, 1287 (Alaska App. 2008).