Opinion
Case No. 20010536-CA.
FILED November 15, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)
Second District, Ogden Department, The Honorable Stanton M. Taylor.
Attorneys: D. Bruce Oliver, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Brett J. DelPorto, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Davis.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Rule 24(a)(9) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure "requires not just bald citation to authority but development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority." State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998). Stark's brief cites only three cases. However, he provides no analysis or application of the legal principles contained in those cases to the present facts. Instead, Stark cites instances in the record of his trial counsel's allegedly ineffective representation, but gives no authority or analysis supporting the proposition that trial counsel's behavior "was objectively deficient." State v. Mecham, 2000 UT App 247, ¶ 21, 9 P.3d 777. This court "`is not simply a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.'" State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 450 (Utah 1988) (citation omitted).
One case is cited as direct support for his challenge on appeal. One is cited to set forth the appropriate standard of review. One is cited for the proposition that trial counsel could successfully have moved the court to suppress evidence.
[Stark'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, [Stark's] brief merely contains [a few] sentences stating his argument generally, quotes favorable portions of the record, and then broadly concludes that he is entitled to relief.
State v. Gamblin, 2000 UT 44, ¶ 7, 1 P.3d 1108. Thus, we decline to address Stark's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and affirm his convictions. See State v. Norris, 2001 UT 104, ¶ 28, 48 P.3d 872 (declining to address inadequately briefed issue).
Even if we addressed Stark's ineffective assistance claim on the merits, we would affirm his convictions because the record does not reveal a "deficiency . . . suggest[ing] a reasonable probability that the outcome would have favored [Stark] had the deficient performance not occurred." State v. Hoyt, 806 P.2d 204, 212 (Utah Ct.App. 1991).
WE CONCUR: Russell W. Bench, Judge, and James Z. Davis, Judge.