MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Oct 20 2016, 9:48 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK
precedent or cited before any court except for the Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE ALLEN
Michael A. Wilson COUNTY COURTS
Elkhart, Illinois Thomas A. Hardin
Justin T. Molitoris
Shine & Hardin, LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael A. Wilson, October 20, 2016
Appellant-Movant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A03-1603-CR-661
v. Appeal from the Allen Circuit Court
The Hon. Thomas J. Felts, Judge
State of Indiana and Allen The Hon. Andrea R. Trevino,
County Courts, Magistrate
Appellees-Respondents. Trial Court Cause No.
02C01-9506-DF-95
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1603-CR-661 | October 20, 2016 Page 1 of 5
[1] In 1996, the Allen Circuit Court granted Appellant-Movant Michael Wilson’s
petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) with respect to his 1995 conviction
for being a habitual traffic violator (“HTV”) and the case was dismissed with
prejudice. The Allen County Clerk of Courts (“the Clerk”) did not provide
notice of this to the Indiana State Police (“the ISP”). In 2015, Wilson filed for
punitive damages and moved for contempt under the original cause number,
alleging that the Clerk was negligent in failing to provide notice to the ISP in
1996 and seeking $20,000 in punitive damages. In March of 2016, the trial
court granted Appellee-Respondent the Allen County Courts’ motions to
dismiss and for summary judgment. Because Wilson has failed to present this
court with a cogent argument sufficient to evaluate his claims on appeal, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 19, 1995, judgment for HTV was entered against Wilson in Allen
Circuit Court. (Appellant's App. 1-2). On October 28, 1996, the trial court
issued an order (“the Order”) granting Wilson’s PCR petition with respect to
his HTV conviction dismissing the case with prejudice. (Appellant's App. 6-7).
The parties agree that Clerk did not forward the Order to the ISP.
[3] On October 26, 2015, the trial court apparently issued an amended judgment to
the ISP and FBI reflecting the 1996 grant of post-conviction relief and dismissal
of charges with prejudice. (Appellant's App. 7). On November 12, 2015,
Wilson filed motions for punitive damages and to find the Clerk in contempt,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1603-CR-661 | October 20, 2016 Page 2 of 5
seeking $20,000 in damages, alleging mental distress and lost employment
opportunities due to the Clerk’s failure to send the Order to the ISP in 1996.
(Appellant's App. 19-21).
[4] On December 10, 2015, Appellee filed a motion to dismiss Wilson’s motion for
punitive damages. (Appellant's App. 22). On January 11, 2016, Appellee
moved for summary judgment on both of Wilson’s claims. (Appellant's App.
33-34). On January 26, 2016, Wilson moved for summary judgment on all
claims. (Tr. 36). On March 18, 2006, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion
to dismiss Wilson’s claim for punitive damages and granted summary judgment
in favor of Appellee on Wilson’s motion for contempt. (Appellant’s Br. 11-14).
The trial court concluded that Appellee, as a qualifying governmental entity,
could not be liable for punitive damages and that the Clerk was not ever in
contempt because the Order did not contain any language directing the Clerk to
send it to any other governmental entities. (Appellant's App. 11-14).
Discussion and Decision
[5] Wilson contends that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of Appellee because
the Clerk was negligent for failing to notify the ISP of the Order in 1996. We
conclude, however, that Wilson’s arguments are waived for failure to make
cogent arguments. Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(A)(8) provides, in
part, as follows:
(8) Argument. This section shall contain the appellant’s
contentions why the trial court or Administrative Agency
committed reversible error.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1603-CR-661 | October 20, 2016 Page 3 of 5
(a) The argument must contain the contentions of the
appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent
reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to
the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the
Record on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule 22.
(b) The argument must include for each issue a concise
statement of the applicable standard of review; this statement
may appear in the discussion of each issue or under a separate
heading placed before the discussion of the issues. In
addition, the argument must include a brief statement of the
procedural and substantive facts necessary for consideration
of the issues presented on appeal, including a statement of
how the issues relevant to the appeal were raised and resolved
by any Administrative Agency or trial court.
[6] Among the other significant deficiencies in Wilson’s Appellant’s Brief,1 the
“argument” consists of three declaratory sentences and one rhetorical question
but contains no citations to the record, no citations to any statutory or case
law,2 and no statements regarding the applicable standard of review.
It is well settled that we will not consider an appellant’s assertion
on appeal when he or she has not presented cogent argument
supported by authority and references to the record as required
by the rules. Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2003). We will not become an advocate for a party, and we
1
Aside from his deficit argument section, Wilson has failed to provide a compliant table of contents, table of
authorities, statement of issues, statement of the case, statement of facts, summary of argument, or
conclusion. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A). Wilson’s Appellant’s Brief does not contain a single citation to the
record on appeal. Finally, Wilson did not file an appendix. App. R. 49 (“The appellant shall file its
Appendix with its appellant’s brief.”) (emphasis added).
2
The only citation to authority with any attempt to explain its significance appears in Wilson’s summary of
argument, and is to “Government Code Sec. 815.6,” which Appellee informs us is a California statute.
Section 815.6, even if it stands for the proposition Wilson claims that it does, is not binding on an Indiana
governmental entity.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1603-CR-661 | October 20, 2016 Page 4 of 5
will not address arguments that are either inappropriate, too
poorly developed, or improperly expressed to be understood. Id.
Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
[7] Wilson’s presentation of the issues on appeal falls far short of what the
Appellate Rules require. Consequently, they are all waived for our
consideration.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1603-CR-661 | October 20, 2016 Page 5 of 5