2011 UT App 95
Filed March 24, 2011
At the close of the State’s case in chief at his trial for aggravated burglary, Schwabland made a motion to dismiss. The motion was denied and Schwabland was convicted. He appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss to the Utah Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court for the following reasons:
- Schwbland’s brief did not meet the requirements of Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure rule 24:
- His brief did not provide a standard of review.
- He did not cite to the record to show where he had preserved the issue on appeal.
- He did not correctly cite to the record in his statement of the facts.
- He did not cite to the parts of the record on which he relied in his argument section.
- Schwabland failed to marshal the evidence as required by rule 24:
- He reargued his case by recounting a version of the facts most favorable to him.
- He disregarded evidence that supported the court’s findings.
- Even if Schwabland had met all the requirements of rule 24, he still failed to show that the trial court ruled incorrectly since there was sufficient evidence presented to the jury for it to find all the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.