In the Interest of R. C.

R. C. was adjudicated delinquent for acts based upon the offenses of simple battery, criminal trespass, and criminal attempt to commit burglary.1 He appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in three enumerations of error. For reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. At the outset, we note that R. C.’s brief fails to comply with Court of Appeals Rule 25 c 1, which mandates that “the sequence of arguments in the briefs shall follow the order of the enumeration of errors, and shall be numbered accordingly.” Although R. C. enumerates three errors, his brief contains only one unnumbered argument apparently intended to cover all enumerations. This violation “not only impedes our review of the errors asserted, but also presents the risk that an asserted error will not be addressed because it cannot be correlated with any argument in the brief.”2 Nevertheless, we will attempt to address his arguments insofar as possible despite the limitations of his brief.

2. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a juvenile court’s adjudication, we construe the evidence in favor of the adjudication to determine if a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the acts charged.3