Opinion ID: 2630520
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Findings of Fact Concerning Competency

Text: ¶ 67 Next, the court assistant claims that the trial court's findings of fact concerning competency are replete with legal errors. To challenge the factual findings of the trial court, the court assistant must first marshal all record evidence that supports the challenged finding[s]. Utah R.App. P. 24(a)(9). A trial court's factual findings will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Lafferty, 2001 UT 19, ¶ 45, 20 P.3d 342. In addition, since this claim was not preserved, the court assistant must show that there was an error in the findings, that the error was obvious, and that it was prejudicial. ¶ 68 The court assistant identifies a number of factors he feels the trial court failed to consider in making its factual findings. The assistant, however, fails to marshal the evidence supporting the findings he attacks. Instead, he avoids addressing the weight of evidence supporting the court's findings by prefacing his analysis with an admission that there is evidence to marshal in support of the trial court's findings. Acknowledging the existence of evidence to marshal is a far cry from actually marshaling the evidence. See State v. Woodland, 945 P.2d 665, 668 (Utah 1997) ([Defendant] must marshal the evidence in a light most favorable to the findings of the trial court and show that evidence to be insufficient.). Having reviewed the record with regard to the court assistant's claims, we determine that the factual findings of the trial court are not replete with legal errors, and by no means are against the great weight of the evidence. Rather, the findings contain only a few slight misstatements that cannot be presumed prejudicial. Reversal of the trial court's finding of competency therefore is not in order.