17 NICS App. 5, BRISBOIS v. TTT (January 2019)
IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION
TULALIP, WASHINGTON
Tyrone Brisbois, Petitioner/Appellant,
v.
The Tulalip Tribes, et al., Respondent/Appellee.
NO. TUL-CV-AP-2018-0304 (January 9, 2019)
SYLLABUS*
Court of Appeals dismissed appeal as appellant failed to file a written brief in support of his position as required by the code, which specifies that parties to an appeal must file written briefs in support of their positions.
|
Before: |
Daniel A. Raas, Chief Justice; John C. Sledd, Justice; Jane M. Smith, Justice. |
|
Appearances: |
Colin McMahon, Snohomish Country Public Defenders, for Appellant; Megan James, Tulalip Tribes’ Prosecutor’s Office, for Appellee. |
OPINION
Raas, C.J.:
Appellant Brisbois sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus from this Court to test the legality of the Tribal Court’s Order revoking his probation when he claimed that he was not advised of his right to counsel at the probation revocation hearing nor was he provided with appointed counsel at that hearing. The Chief Justice issued the Writ and ordered that the Tribal Court to hold a fact finding hearing and render an initial decision pursuant to TTC 2.25.070(6). Because the Chief Judge of the Tulalip Tribal Court is named as a Respondent in a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Judge pro tem presided at that hearing. Mr. Brisbois was represented by counsel who is admitted to practice before the Tulalip Tribal Courts and the Courts of the State of Washington. The Tribal Court issued an opinion denying both of Mr. Brisbois’ claims, and, through his counsel, Mr. Brisbois timely appealed.
A Scheduling Order for the appeal required Mr. Brisbois to file his opening brief no later than November 13, 2018. No brief was filed. On November 20 the Chief Justice e-mailed the Clerk requesting that she ask Appellant’s counsel if Mr. Brisbois intended to file and opening
17 NICS App. 5, BRISBOIS v. TTT (January 2019) p. 6
brief and noting that a Motion for an extension of time would need to accompany an opening brief. The Clerk was authorized to convey to counsel that it was likely that such a Motion would be granted. Later that same afternoon Appellant’s counsel responded by e-mail: “We will be relying on previously filed authority for the purpose of this appeal and will not be filing additional pleadings with the Court of Appeals.” Counsel for The Tulalip Tribes was copied on this e-mail.
On November 30, Respondent The Tulalip Tribes moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to TTT 2.20.070(e) for failure to file an opening brief. On December 6, 2018, Appellant was ordered to file his Response to Respondent Tulalip Tribes’ Motion to Dismiss no later than December 14, 2018. Appellant has not filed a response to the Motion nor has he filed an opening brief.
TTT 2.20.070 requires parties to file written briefs in the Court of Appeals. TTC 2.20.070(1)(a) sets out four discussions that must be present in an Appellant’s opening brief: a short statement of the case, concise arguments of Appellant’s contentions, relevant legal authority and the relief requested. An e-mailed statement that Appellant “is relying on previously filed authority” does not satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance.
Over twenty years ago the Colville Tribes Court of Appeals, ruling in a similar case, stated: “The Court find further that the Appellant’s reference to Trial Court briefs does not constitute a “filing” of an appellate brief. Rather, it shows disrespect to the Appellate Bench, and such references shall not be considered by the Court.” Herman v. Confederated Colville Tribes, 3 CCAR 65(2) (1996)
TTC 2.20.070 requires the parties to an appeal to file written briefs in support of their positions. Appellant has failed to do so, and the Appeal is therefore DISMISSED.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court’s Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.