SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE v. HUTCHINS

8 NICS App. 40, SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE v. HUTCHINS (January 2008)

IN THE SKOKOMISH TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

SKOKOMISH INDIAN RESERVATION

SKOKOMISH, WASHINGTON

Skokomish Indian Tribe, Plaintiff and Appellee,

Christopher J. Hutchins, Defendant and Appellant.

No. SKO-CI-9/07-355 (January 7, 2008)

SYLLABUS^*

Trial court issued order excluding Defendant from the Reservation. Court of Appeals holds that Defendant’s notice of appeal fails to comply with statutory requirement that the notice identify an error that would affect the outcome of the case. Appeal dismissed.

Before: Suzanne Ojibway Townsend, Chief Justice; Lisa L. Atkinson, Justice; Daniel A. Brown, Justice.

OPINION

This matter comes before the Skokomish Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to Appellant Christopher Hutchins’ letter filed with the Skokomish Tribal Court on October 23, 2007 requesting an appeal in this matter.

An appellate proceeding is not simply a “re-do” of the trial court proceedings. The Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the notice of appeal does not meet the filing requirements of the code, and the Court of Appeals has no authority to grant relief where the Appellant fails to identify an error of law or procedure committed by the trial court that affected the outcome of the case.

The Skokomish Rules of Appellate Procedure limit the right to appeal to “[a]ny person who claims, in good faith, that the Skokomish Tribal Court made a mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure which affected the outcome of a case.” STC 3.01.101 (Appellate Rule 101). Furthermore, the rules require that “[t]he notice of appeal shall contain the name of the parties, the case docket number, the date and nature of the judgment appealed from, and the

8 NICS App. 40, SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE v. HUTCHINS (January 2008) p. 41

reasons why the party appealing thinks the court made a mistake.” STC 3.01.102(b) (Appellate Rule 102). Mr. Hutchins’ notice of appeal fails to comply with these requirements. Most significantly, the notice of appeal does not suggest that the trial court made a mistake – it simply seeks relief from the judgment.

Based on the foregoing, Mr. Hutchins appeal is denied and the October 11, 2007 Order of Exclusion is affirmed.

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.