Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 19 2013, 7:09 am
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DANIEL R. FUQUAY, SR. GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DANIEL R. FUQUAY, SR., )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 82A01-1208-CR-360
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Carl A. Heldt, Judge
Cause No. 82C01-9012-CF-8529
June 19, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Daniel R. Fuquay appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. We
affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 16, 1992, Fuquay pled guilty to Class B felony dealing in cocaine1 and was
sentenced to ten years, with five years executed and five years suspended, to be served
consecutive to a twenty-year sentence he was already serving. On June 9, 2003, after serving
both sentences, Fuquay began probation. On March 27, 2008, the trial court revoked
Fuquay’s probation after he pled guilty to Class D felony possession of cocaine, and ordered
him to serve his previously-suspended five-year sentence consecutive to his sentence for
Class D felony possession of cocaine2.
On June 26, 2012, Fuquay, pro se, filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence. On
July 31, the trial court denied his motion.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
We first note Fuquay proceeds in his appeal pro se. It is well settled that pro se
litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and are required to follow
procedural rules. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.
Fuquay has not complied with Ind. Appellate Rule 50(A)(2), which requires the appellant’s
appendix to contain a copy of “the appealed judgment or order, including any written
opinion, memorandum of decision, or findings of fact and conclusions thereon relating to the
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.
2
issues raised on appeal.” Fuquay has not included in the record a copy of the order denying
his motion to correct erroneous sentence.
“[A] motion to correct sentence may only be used to correct sentencing errors that are
clear from the face of the judgment imposing the sentence in light of the statutory authority.
Claims that require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial may not be
presented by way of a motion to correct sentence.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 785
(Ind. 2004). Pursuant to App. R. 46(A)(8)(a), the appellant’s argument must “contain the
contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each
contention must be supported by citations to authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts
of the Record on Appeal relied upon[.]” Failure to present a cogent argument results in
waiver of the issue on appeal. Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App.
1999). Fuquay’s argument is, at best, difficult to determine, and the cases he cites as
authority seem to have no bearing on any issues he presents. He has thus waived his
argument by failing to make a cogent argument and we accordingly affirm the decision of the
trial court.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.
3