Daniels v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Daniels v. State

515 N.E.2d 530, 1987 Ind. LEXIS 1136

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1987

DocketNo. 45S00-8611-CR-948

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 515 N.E.2d 530 (Daniels v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniels v. State, 515 N.E.2d 530, 1987 Ind. LEXIS 1136 (Ind. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

DICKSON, Justice.

Following jury trial, defendant Kieran Daniels was convicted of robbery, a class A felony. In this direct appeal, defendant seeks to present the single issue of sufficiency of evidence.

In his brief to this Court, defendant presents a detailed statement of facts, but his argument fails to comply with the requirements of Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7). He does not present argument identifying which elements of the offense he contends were not proven, nor does he explain in what other manner the evidence was insufficient. Failure to present cogent argument operates as a waiver of this issue on appeal. Gossmeyer v. State (1985), Ind., 482 N.E.2d 239; Bieghler v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 78, cert. denied, (1986), 475 U.S. 1031, 106 S.Ct. 1241, 89 L.Ed.2d 349.

Furthermore, we observed that trial testimony of four eyewitnesses described the robbery and identified the defendant as its perpetrator, and that his fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime.

Judgment affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DICKSON, Justice.

Following jury trial, defendant Kieran Daniels was convicted of robbery, a class A felony. In this direct appeal, defendant seeks to present the single issue of sufficiency of evidence.

In his brief to this Court, defendant presents a detailed statement of facts, but his argument fails to comply with the requirements of Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7). He does not present argument identifying which elements of the offense he contends were not proven, nor does he explain in what other manner the evidence was insufficient. Failure to present cogent argument operates as a waiver of this issue on appeal. Gossmeyer v. State (1985), Ind., 482 N.E.2d 239; Bieghler v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 78, cert. denied, (1986), 475 U.S. 1031, 106 S.Ct. 1241, 89 L.Ed.2d 349.

Furthermore, we observed that trial testimony of four eyewitnesses described the robbery and identified the defendant as its perpetrator, and that his fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime.

Judgment affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 N.E.2d 530, 1987 Ind. LEXIS 1136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-state-ind-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack