State of New Hampshire v. Josephine Amatucci

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0562, State of New Hampshire v.
Josephine Amatucci, the court on April 29, 2016, issued the
following order:

We decline to grant relief pursuant to the pleadings that the defendant,
Josephine Amatucci, has filed after she filed her reply brief on March 16, 2016,
because, to the extent that we understand them, they raise issues that are not
properly before us.

Having considered the brief filed by the defendant, the memorandum of
law filed by the State, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that
oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The
defendant appeals the finding by the Circuit Court (Patten, J.) that she is guilty
of the class B misdemeanor charge of disobeying an officer. See RSA 265:4
(2014) (classifying the crime of disobeying an officer as a class A misdemeanor);
see also RSA 625:9, VII (Supp. 2015) (providing that the State may elect to
prosecute a class A misdemeanor as a class B misdemeanor). We affirm.

“[I]n the realm of appellate review, a mere laundry list of complaints
regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument,
is insufficient to warrant judicial review.” State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49
(2003) (quotation omitted). We also will not review arguments that the
defendant did not raise in her notice of appeal. See id. Although we
understand that the defendant is self-represented in this proceeding, we hold
self-represented parties to the same procedural rules that govern parties
represented by counsel. See In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154
N.H. 51, 56 (2006).

Moreover, as the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of
providing this court with a record sufficient to decide her issues on appeal, as
well as to demonstrate that she raised her issues before the trial court. Bean v.
Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see Sup. Ct. R. 15(3) (“If the
moving party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding or
conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding
or conclusion.”). Without a transcript of the trial, we must assume that the
evidence was sufficient to support the result reached by the trial court. Bean,
151 N.H. at 250. Our review in such a case is limited to legal errors that are
apparent on the face of the record. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396-
97 (1997). Because the defendant has not developed any appellate argument
demonstrating that the trial court erred as a matter of law, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2