entered, that upon trial the prosecution would have the burden of proving each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the plea is an admission of all those elements; (B) there is a factual basis for the plea. ...; (5) the defendant knows the minimum and maximum sentence, and if applicable, the mini-reum mandatory nature of the minimum sentence, that may be imposed for each offense to which a plea is entered. Utah R.Crim. P. 11(e)(2), (4)-(5). 3 . Because our decision that the trial court failed to strictly comply with rule 11 by accepting Mora's guilty plea without informing him that the State had the burden to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is dispositive, we need not address Mora's other arguments. See, e.g., State v. Heaton, 958 P.2d 911, 919 (Utah 1998) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Prior to the creation of the strict
holding that where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants other arguments holding that appellate courts need not address remaining issues when the resolution of a prior issue is dispositive holding that this court need not address the merits of an argument raised for the first time on appeal holding that where a party does not adequately brief an argument we need not address it on appeal holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive