State v. BOSQUEZ, 275 P.3d 1032

Bosquez was found intoxicated in his vehicle parked in front of a video store; keys were in the ignition.
Arresting officer observed Bosquez was intoxicated; blood alcohol content was .269.
Bosquez was charged with DUI (felony) and driving with alcohol restrictions (misdemeanor).
Bosquez testified he did not drive that night; a coworker brought him to the store and left; Bosquez claimed he slept in the car.
Defense argued Bosquez was living in the car; trial court denied directed-verdict motion; jury convicted.
On appeal, Bosquez challenged ineffective assistance of counsel and the sufficiency/preservation of the physical-control issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance claim preserved?	Bosquez argues counsel failed to object to hearsay and related trial decisions.	Bosquez asserts ineffective assistance based on trial counsel's actions/omissions.	Issue not reviewed due to inadequate briefing.
Preservation of a 'vehicle as dwelling' defense to physical control?	State contends issue not preserved because defense never properly raised it below.	Defense claims the vehicle-as-residence argument preserved by opening statement and motion.	Not preserved; the district court was not given adequate notice to correct error.

State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299 (Utah 1998) (preservation and briefing standards apply to appeals)
State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439 (Utah 1988) (limits on appellate review of inadequately briefed issues)
State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994) (counsel's performance and strategic decisions may be contested on appeal)
State v. Lee, 128 P.3d 1179 (Utah 2006) (requirements of preservation and specificity in motions and arguments)
State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299 (Utah 1998) (requirements for placing district court on notice of potential error)