Michael W. Wise, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) , 121 N.E.3d 149 ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jan 30 2019, 8:44 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT, PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael W. Wise, Sr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Plainfield, Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael W. Wise, Sr., January 30, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1710-CR-2385
v. Appeal from the Hamilton
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven R. Nation,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29D01-1412-FC-9933
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-CR-2385 | January 30, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Michael Wise (“Wise”), pro se, appeals the trial court’s order denying his
petition for additional earned credit time. Wise makes no cogent argument and
has failed to cite to any relevant case law. As a result, we conclude that he has
waived appellate review of this issue, and we affirm the trial court’s decision.
[2] We affirm.
Facts
[3] On July 14, 2015, Wise was convicted of Class D felony check deception and
Class C felony check fraud. He was also adjudicated to be an habitual offender.
The trial court sentenced Wise to sixteen (16) years in the Indiana Department
of Correction (“DOC”).
[4] While in the DOC, Wise completed two programs titled “Walking the Twelve
Steps” and “Mothers Against Methamphetamine.” (App. Vol. 1 at 37).
Thereafter, Wise sent a letter to a DOC classification officer inquiring whether
he would receive credit for completing the two programs. The classification
officer informed Wise that he would not receive credit time for the completion
of the two programs because “[they] [we]re not IDOC approved time cut
programs.” (App. Vol. 1 at 40). Wise then filed a DOC classification appeal.
The appeal was denied with the notation “[p]rogram is not a IDOC recognized
program.” (App. Vol. 1 at 41).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-CR-2385 | January 30, 2019 Page 2 of 5
[5] Wise then filed a motion for additional earned credit time in his court of
conviction. The State filed a response objecting to Wise’s motion, arguing that
he “seeks a time cut for programs which do not qualify for time cuts at the
Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC).” (App. Vol. 1 at 44). The trial
court agreed and denied Wise’s motion. Wise now appeals.
Decision
[6] At the outset, we note that Wise has chosen to proceed pro se in this appeal.
It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal
standards as licensed attorneys. This means that pro se litigants
are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must
be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.
These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent
argument on appeal. While we prefer to decide issues on the
merits, where the appellant’s noncompliance with appellate rules
is so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we
may deem the alleged errors waived. We will not become an
advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate
or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.
Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted), reh’g denied.
[7] Wise’s appellate brief falls short of the standard established in the Indiana
Appellate Rules. First, Wise’s arguments are not cogent. Appellate Rule
46(A)(8) lists the requirements for the argument section of an appellant’s brief,
stating in pertinent part:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-CR-2385 | January 30, 2019 Page 3 of 5
(8) Argument. This section shall contain the appellant’s
contentions why the trial court or Administrative Agency
committed reversible error.
(a) The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant
on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each
contention must be supported by citation to the authorities,
statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied
on, in accordance with Rule 22.
Accordingly, as the party with the burden of establishing error on appeal, Wise
must cite to pertinent authority and develop reasoned arguments supporting his
position. Wise’s first argument consists of three sentences. None of which
explain why the trial court erred in denying his motion. Similarly, his second
argument consists of one sentence and does not explain why he should receive
the relief he is seeking. Consequently, Wise has waived these contentions by
failing to make a cogent argument. See, e.g., Maggert v. Call, 817 N.E.2d 649,
651 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that the appellant waived claims because he
failed to provide a cogent argument); Johnson v. State, 832 N.E.2d 985, 1004
(Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (holding that post-conviction petitioner waived appellate
consideration of his contention when he devoted only one sentence to his claim
and failed to cite any relevant case law), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Wise’s failure
to follow the appropriate appellate rules has hampered our review of his
appeal.1 As a result, he waives consideration of the issues raised in this appeal
and we affirm the trial court’s decision.
1
We further note that Wise’s brief contains nineteen pages of various pleadings filed in the trial court and
copies of statues. Appellate Rule 50 provides that the appellant’s appendix shall contain copies of pleadings
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-CR-2385 | January 30, 2019 Page 4 of 5
[8] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.
and other documents from the Clerk’s Record. While Wise filed an appendix with pleadings, he also chose
to include these pleadings in his appellate brief.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-CR-2385 | January 30, 2019 Page 5 of 5