Russell Rouzier v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 23, 2020
• Docket: 19A-PC-1609
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 23 2020, 9:43 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE I. Marshall Pinkus Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Pinkus & Pinkus Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Tyler G. Banks Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Russell Rouzier, September 23, 2020 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-PC-1609 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Respondent Lisa F. Borges, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G04-1612-PC-48935

Vaidik, Judge.

[1] In February 2016, Russell Rouzier was convicted of Level 3 felony criminal

confinement and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and sentenced to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1609 | September 23, 2020 Page 1 of 3 twelve years. We affirmed on direct appeal. See Rouzier v. State, No. 49A04-

1603-CR-495 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016).

[2] In December 2016, Rouzier filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing

that his trial counsel was ineffective on several grounds. After an evidentiary

hearing at which Rouzier was the only witness to testify, the post-conviction

court denied relief. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 24-39.

[3] Rouzier now appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying

his petition. Rouzier’s arguments are contained within a single paragraph, and

that paragraph is simply a series of conclusory allegations that his trial counsel

was ineffective. Specifically, Rouzier claims there was “no consistent

representation provided by the Marion County Public Defenders Agency,” that

his trial counsel was not “prepared” for trial, that his trial counsel did not let

him participate in the jury-selection process, that his trial counsel did not let

him testify, that his trial counsel “allowed” the State to play only a portion of a

recording, and that his trial counsel should have objected to pictures of a knife

found on the scene. See Appellant’s Br. pp. 11-12. Rouzier does not develop

these arguments or provide any citations to the record to support them. And

although Rouzier cites Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which sets

forth a two-part test for evaluating ineffectiveness claims, he fails to perform the

analysis required by that case. That is, he doesn’t argue how trial counsel’s

performance was deficient in any detail beyond a mere allegation of deficiency

or argue how that deficient performance prejudiced him.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1609 | September 23, 2020 Page 2 of 3 [4] A party waives an issue where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or

provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record. Smith v. State,

822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied; see also Ind.

Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring the appellant’s arguments to be

“supported by cogent reasoning” and “citations to the authorities, statutes, and

the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on”). The State claims

that Rouzier has waived all his arguments, and notably Rouzier didn’t file a

reply brief to dispute that claim. We agree with the State that Rouzier has

waived all his arguments and therefore affirm the post-conviction court.

[5] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Baker, Sr. J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1609 | September 23, 2020 Page 3 of 3