6 NICS App. 24, MUCKLESHOOT v. STARR (December 2000)
IN THE MUCKLESHOOT TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN RESERVATION
AUBURN, WASHINGTON
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Respondent/Plaintiff,
v.
Louis Starr, III, Appellant/Defendant.
No. MUC-Cr-7/97-203; MUC-Cr-7/97-235 (December 12, 2000)
SYLLABUS*
Appeal dismissed for failure to specify order being appealed and failure to specify grounds for appeal.
Before: Lorintha Warwick, Chief Justice; Lisa E. Brodoff, Justice; Rose E. Purser, Justice.
OPINION
This matter came before the Muckleshoot Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by Louis Starr, III, on November 21, 2000. The Muckleshoot trial court on August 21, 2000 issued an Order Seizing Defendant's Per Capita Check. On September 20, 2000, Mr. Starr simultaneously filed a Notice of Appeal and a motion "asking for another court hearing, on the grounds that I was in the hospital" on the date of his trial.
In a September 26, 2000 order, the trial court required Mr. Starr to submit proof of his hospital stay before it would grant his motion for reconsideration. The trial court's order provided that failure to provide such proof within thirty days would result in automatic denial of his motion.
Mr. Starr did not provide proof of his hospital stay and the trial court, on November 20, 2000, issued an Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and New Hearing. Mr. Starr filed a Notice of Appeal the following day stating: "I was in Auburn General Hospital, I have a broken hip, have a hard time [moving] about."
Muckleshoot Appellate Rule 9.03.01(b) requires a Notice of Appeal to "specify the parties to the appeal, the order, commitment or judgment appeal from and a short statement of the reasons or grounds for the appeal." Mr. Starr's Notice of Appeal fails to meet these requirements.
6 NICS App. 24, MUCKLESHOOT v. STARR (December 2000) p. 25
First, the Notice of Appeal does not specify the order from which he appeals. It is not clear to this Court whether Mr. Starr is appealing the trial court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, its Order Seizing Defendant's Per Capita Check or both. Second, Mr. Starr's Notice of Appeal does not contain a statement of any reviewable grounds for his appeal.
The role of an appellate court is to review an alleged error made by the lower court. Courts of appeal are not fact finders and are not merely another forum for a second trial. A appealing party must make some allegation that the lower court has erred in its interpretation of law or procedure or that its ruling is not based on substantial facts in the record. Mr. Starr's Notice of Appeal merely repeats to the Court of Appeals an unsupported statement previously made to and rejected by the trial court. This does not constitute a reviewable ground for appellate review.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, this appeal is hereby denied for failure to meet the requirements of §9.03.01 of the Muckleshoot Tribal Code.
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.