In the Commitment of S.C. (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 31, 2017
• Docket: 49A04-1608-MH-1802
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 31 2017, 9:02 am

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 S.C. Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Commitment of S.C. January 31, 2017 Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1608-MH-1802 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Steven R. Eichholtz, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-1606-MH-23181

Pyle, Judge.

Statement of the Case [1] S.C., pro se, appeals her involuntary temporary commitment. However, due to

her lack of cogent argument and appellate rule violations, we conclude that she

has waived her claim on appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 1 of 5 [2] We dismiss.

Issue Whether S.C. has waived appellate review of her argument.

Facts1 [3] On June 28, 2016, Eskenazi Hospital filed an application for emergency

detention of S.C. The trial court held a hearing on the application and ordered

that S.C. be involuntarily committed to Eskenazi Hospital on a temporary basis

until October 5, 2016. Subsequently, S.C., pro se, filed a motion to belatedly

appeal her commitment, and this Court granted the motion. In our order

granting the motion, we ordered S.C. to file an amended notice of appeal that

included instructions for the Court Reporter as to which hearings S.C. wished

to have transcribed. S.C. filed an amended notice of appeal but did not specify

a hearing she wished to have transcribed.

[4] Thereafter, S.C. filed an Appellant’s Brief arguing that she was not mentally ill

and that the police reports that were the basis for her commitment were false.

As a result, S.C. asserted that she should be released from her commitment.

However, S.C. did not file an Appellant’s Appendix or a copy of the trial

court’s commitment order. In addition, her brief lacked headings, citations to

1 The only facts we have concerning S.C.’s commitment proceeding are those we have gleaned from the chronological case summary that was attached to the Clerk’s “Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 2 of 5 the record, and citations to legal authority. Eskenazi Hospital did not file an

Appellee’s Brief.

Decision [5] On appeal, S.C. argues that she should be released from her involuntary

commitment because she is not mentally ill and because the police reports that

were the basis for her commitment were false. However, S.C.’s lack of cogent

argument and numerous appellate rule violations hinder us from reviewing her

claim.2

[6] Preliminarily, we must note that we have previously explained that:

one who proceeds pro se is held to the same established rules of procedure that a trained legal counsel is bound to follow and, therefore, must be prepared to accept the consequences of his or her action. While we prefer to decide cases on the merits, we will deem alleged errors waived where an appellant’s noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors. The purpose of our appellate rules, Ind. Appellate Rule 46 in particular, is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case. We will not become an advocate for a party, nor will we address arguments which are either inappropriate, too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood.

2 Furthermore, based on the chronological case summary, it would appear that S.C.’s temporary commitment has expired, rendering any alleged error moot. See Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (“When a court is unable to render effective relief to a party, the case is deemed moot and usually dismissed.”).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 3 of 5 In re Garrard, 985 N.E.2d 1097, 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Ramsey v.

Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind. Ct. App.

2003) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted)) (emphasis in original),

reh’g denied, trans. denied.

[7] In this case, S.C. claims that she should be released from her commitment

because the reports that were the basis for her commitment were false.

However, she does not provide any citations to the record or to legal authority

to support her argument. Because a party waives an issue where the party fails

to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to the record or legal

authority on appeal, we conclude that S.C. has waived her claim. See id.

[8] Moreover, S.C. has not provided this Court with a sufficient record to review

her claim. S.C. did not file an Appellant’s Appendix including, as required

under Appellate Rule 50(A)(2), the chronological case summary, the appealed

judgment or order, or “pleadings and other documents from the Clerk’s Record

in chronological order that are necessary for resolution of the issues raised on

appeal.” App. R. 50(A)(2). In addition, she failed to specify which hearing she

wished the court clerk to transcribe, so there is no transcript. Without these

documents, we are unable to determine even the basis for the trial court’s order

committing S.C. We certainly cannot evaluate whether that decision was error.

The only facts we have concerning S.C.’s commitment proceeding are those we

have gleaned from the chronological case summary that was attached to the

Clerk’s “Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 4 of 5 [9] We recognize that a mental health commitment is a restriction on an

individual’s liberty that is little different than jail, and we consider it as a

challenge to the personal liberty we all hold dear. See Jackson v. Ind. Adult

Protective Services, 52 N.E.3d 821, 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Civil

Commitment of W.S. v. Eskenazi Health, Midtown Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 23

N.E.3d 29, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied). However, in order to fairly

and effectively consider a challenge to a mental health commitment, we must

receive a record that is much more than just a challenge to the credibility of

witnesses, a challenge that the trial courts are entitled to resolve on the evidence

with which they are presented. See id. (stating that “we will not reweigh the

evidence or assess witness credibility”). The Court of Appeals cannot and will

not serve as a restrained individual’s appellate counsel. See Garrard, 985 N.E.2d

at 1103. Accordingly, we dismiss S.C.’s claim. See Ramsey, 789 N.E.2d 486

(holding that the appellant’s substantial noncompliance with the rules of

appellate procedure resulted in waiver of his claims on appeal).

[10] Dismissed.

Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1608-MH-1802 | January 31, 2017 Page 5 of 5