Opinion
Case No. 20041039-CA.
Filed December 30, 2005. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Fourth District, Orem Department, 031201425, The Honorable John C. Backlund.
Bruce Armstrong, Lindon, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert J. Church, Orem, for Appellee.
Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Greenwood.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Bruce Armstrong appeals the judgment of the district court. We affirm on the basis that Armstrong's claims are inadequately briefed.
Armstrong has pursued this appeal pro se. While Armstrong was clearly entitled to represent himself in this appeal, generally, "a party who represents himself will be held to the same standard of knowledge and practice as any qualified member of the bar." Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207, 1213 (Utah 1983). While "a layperson acting as his or her own attorney should be accorded every consideration that may reasonably be indulged," reasonable consideration does not require this court to "redress the ongoing consequences of the party's decision to function in a capacity for which [he] is not trained." Wurst v. Department of Employment Sec., 818 P.2d 1036, 1039 n. 3 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (quotations and citation omitted).
"It is well established that a reviewing court will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed." State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 304 (Utah 1998); see also Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305, 313 (Utah 1998) (declining to address appellant's claim on appeal due to inadequate analysis); State v. Herrera, 895 P.2d 359, 368 n. 5 (Utah 1995) (refusing to address appellant's undeveloped argument).
In deciding whether an argument has been adequately briefed, we look to the standard set forth in rule 24(a)(9) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Thomas, 961 P.2d at 304. Rule 24(a)(9) states that the argument in the appellant's brief "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). Compliance with this rule "is mandatory, and failure to conform to these requirements may carry serious consequences. For example, `briefs which are not in compliance may be disregarded or stricken, on motion or sua sponte by the court.'" Beehive Tel. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 2004 UT 18, ¶ 12, 89 P.3d 131 (quoting Utah R. App. P. 24(j)).
Armstrong's brief fails to comply with rule 24(a)(9) in numerous respects. Aside from his failure to recite any facts of record, Armstrong simply sets forth various conclusions with little argument and no support. For instance, Armstrong alleges that Orem City's motion for an order to show cause "incorrectly embellished the original charges, and had a significant adverse impact on the results of the hearing." However, Armstrong provides no information of record to explain this accusation and fails to explain how or why the district court erred as a result. The same is true regarding each of the remaining arguments set forth in Armstrong's brief.
In short, Armstrong's claims are "devoid of any `meaningful analysis.'" State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234, ¶ 12, 52 P.3d 467 (quoting State v. Marquez, 2002 UT App 127, ¶ 10, 54 P.3d 637). "Implicitly, rule 24(a)(9) requires not just bald citation to authority but development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority. We have previously stated that this court is not `a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.'" Thomas, 961 P.2d at 304 (quoting State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 450 (Utah 1988)).
"`To permit meaningful appellate review, briefs must comply with the briefing requirements sufficiently to enable us to understand . . . what particular errors were allegedly made, where in the record those errors can be found, and why, under applicable authorities, those errors are material ones necessitating reversal or other relief.'" State v. Lucero, 2002 UT App 135, ¶ 13, 47 P.3d 107 (alteration in original) (quotingBurns v. Summerhays, 927 P.2d 197, 199 (Utah Ct.App. 1996)).
Armstrong's brief fails to answer these questions. When a party does not offer any meaningful analysis regarding a claim, we decline to reach the merits. See State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Judith M. Billings, Presiding Judge, Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge, and Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge, concur.