IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐

P.H.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

Sandy City,

Respondent and Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PER CURIAM DECISION1

Case No. 20110614‐CA

F I L E D

(July 27, 2012)

   2012 UT App 210

‐‐‐‐‐

Third District, West Jordan Department, 091402783

The Honorable Andrew H. Stone

Attorneys: P.H., Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges McHugh, Davis, and Christiansen.

¶1 P.H. appeals the denial of a petition to expunge records of his arrest,

investigation, and detention.  See Utah Code Ann. § 77‐40‐104 (Supp. 2011).  The district

court denied the petition after finding that it would be contrary to the public interest to

grant expungement.  We affirm.

¶2 “Probation and expungement of one’s record are neither matters of right nor of

grace, but can only be granted when they appear to be compatible with the public

interest.”  State v. Chambers, 533 P.2d 876, 878 (Utah 1975) (construing former Utah Code

section 77‐35‐17 (repealed July 1, 1980)).  Decisions regarding expungement will be set

aside only if the courtʹs exercise of its broad discretion “is shown to have been abused,

arbitrary, or capricious.”  Id. at 879.

1.  This order has been modified in accordance with the Utah Supreme Court Standing

Order No. 12.
¶3 P.H.’s brief fails to comply with the provisions of rule 24 of the Utah Rules of

Appellate Procedure.  First, it does not contain sufficient, accurate, and specific citations

to the record and transcript, as required by rule 24(e).  See Utah R. App. P. 24(e).  In

addition, a section captioned “Statement of Fact and Arguments” mixes statements that

are clearly argument with purported factual statements that are not supported by

adequate citations.  Rule 24 states, “The argument 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.”  Id. R. 24(a)(9).  We may decline to reach the

merits of an issue “when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the

burden of research and argument to the reviewing court.”  State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299,

305 (Utah 1998).  When we decline to reach the merits of a case due to inadequate

briefing, we assume the correctness of the judgment.  See English v. Standard Optical Co.,

814 P.2d 613, 619 (Utah Ct. App. 1991).  Because P.H. did not provide sufficient analysis

or citation to legal authority, we decline to address his substantive arguments. See State

v. Sloan, 2003 UT App 170, ¶ 13, 72 P.3d 138.  Accordingly, we address only his

procedural claims.

¶4 It is undisputed that P.H. was entitled to obtain a certificate of eligibility for

expungement of records from the Bureau of Criminal Identification.  See Utah Code

Ann. § 77‐40‐104 (Supp. 2011).  A petition for expungement and the certificate of

eligibility must be filed in the trial court that handled the criminal proceedings and be

served on the prosecuting agency.  See id. § 77‐40‐107(1).  If the court receives any

objection, it shall schedule a hearing.  See id. § 77‐40‐107(6).  Here, the district court

scheduled the required hearing on the petition for expungement after receiving the

victim’s written objection.  The prosecutor was entitled to testify at the hearing.  See id.

§ 77‐40‐107(6)(b) (stating that the petitioner, prosecuting attorney, victim, and any other

person who has relevant information may testify at the hearing).  After any hearing,

[t]he court shall issue an order of expungement if it finds by

clear and convincing evidence that:

(a) the petition and certificate of eligibility are sufficient;

(b) the statutory requirements have been met; and

(c) it is not contrary to the interests of the public to grant the

expungement.

20110614‐CA 2
Id. § 77‐40‐107(8).  Finally, “[t]he court shall review the petition, the certificate of

eligibility, and any written responses submitted regarding the petition.”  Id.

§ 77‐40‐107(6)(c).  The district court did not err in holding a hearing or in considering

the written statement of the victim or the arguments of the prosecutor.

¶5 While acknowledging that an expungement petition initiates a statutory civil

proceeding, P.H. nevertheless argues that he was entitled to expungement as a matter of

law and that Sandy City bore the burden of proof and was required to subpoena the

victim to appear and submit to cross‐examination.  He also argues that the district court

improperly required him to demonstrate that expungement would not be contrary to

the public interest.  These claims are without merit.  The Utah Expungement Act

became effective in May 2010 and applies retroactively.  See id. § 77‐40‐113.  The district

court correctly determined that P.H. bore the burden of proving all statutory

prerequisites for expungement, including proving by clear and convincing evidence

that expungement “is not contrary to the interests of the public to grant the

expungement.”  See id. § 77‐40‐107(6)(c).

¶6 The district court’s decision to deny expungement was not an abuse of its broad

discretion and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.  Accordingly, we affirm.

____________________________________

Carolyn B. McHugh,

Presiding Judge

____________________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

____________________________________

Michele M. Christiansen, Judge

20110614‐CA 3