Silvia Regina Carranza v. Norman Woodruff (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 22, 2016
• Docket: 71A04-1508-DR-1206
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 22 2016, 9:50 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE Silvia Carranza South Bend, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Silvia Regina Carranza, March 22, 2016 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A04-1508-DR-1206 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court Norman Woodruff, The Honorable Margot F. Reagan, Appellee-Respondent Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D04-1202-DR-127

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1508-DR-1206 | March 22, 2016 Page 1 of 4 [1] Silvia Regina Carranza (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s denial of her

petition to modify child custody of her two minor children L.A.W. and I.M.W.

From what we are able to discern from the extremely limited record available

for our review, it appears that Mother and Norman Woodruff (“Father”) were

married, are now divorced, and Father has been granted sole physical and legal

custody of L.A.W. and I.M.W. since 2012. Mother filed a petition to modify

custody on June 15, 2015, and following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court

entered a detailed order denying Mother’s petition to modify. 1

[2] We begin by noting that Mother proceeds in this appeal pro se. A pro se

litigant is held to the same standards as a trained attorney and is afforded no

inherent leniency simply by virtue of being self-represented. Zavodnik v. Harper,

17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014). One risk a litigant takes when she proceeds pro

se is that she will not know how to accomplish all the things an attorney would

know how to accomplish. Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2009), trans. denied. Because the same standards apply to pro se appellants

as to others, any alleged errors are waived if applicable rules are not complied

with. Foley v. Mannor, 844 N.E.2d 494, 496 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

[3] Although failure to comply with the appellate rules does not necessarily result

in waiver of the issues presented, it is appropriate where, as here, such

1 We commend the trial court for its restraint and patience in this matter, as it is patently clear that Mother has bombarded the trial court with phone calls, letters, numerous motions, and other meritless filings. Mother has similarly bombarded this Court with numerous meritless filings.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1508-DR-1206 | March 22, 2016 Page 2 of 4 noncompliance impedes our review. See In re Moeder, 27 N.E.3d 1089, 1097 n.4

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Because it would be too cumbersome for us

to restate all of the appellate rules that Mother has violated, we will simply say

that her appellant’s brief fails to comply in virtually every respect with Indiana

Appellate Rule 46 regarding the arrangement and content of briefs. See generally

Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A) (entitled “Appellant’s Brief”). Most significantly,

Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) requires that contentions in an appellant's brief

be supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authorities, statutes, and the

appendix or parts of the record on appeal. Failure to comply with this rule

results in waiver of an argument on appeal. Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277, 297

(Ind. 2012).

[4] Mother’s brief consists of emotional, rambling, and disorganized statements.

Mother cites merely two cases in her thirty-two page brief, and does so wholly

without reference to what propositions those cases stand for or how they

advance any of her arguments. Mother’s brief does not contain a single citation

to the transcript of the trial court proceedings. Indeed, Mother failed to request

the transcript of proceedings in her notice of appeal and therefore, none has

been provided. “It is well settled that the duty of presenting a record adequate

for intelligent appellate review on points assigned as error falls upon the

appellant, as does the obligation to support the argument presented with

authority and references to the record pursuant to [Indiana Appellate Rule]

46(A)(8).” AutoXchange.com, Inc. v. Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc., 816 N.E.2d 40, 44

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Under the circumstances presented, it is not possible for

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1508-DR-1206 | March 22, 2016 Page 3 of 4 us to provide meaningful appellate review of the trial court’s denial of Mother’s

petition to modify.

[5] In sum, Mother’s noncompliance with the appellate rules and her failure to

provide us an adequate record for review has resulted in the waiver of her claim

on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Mother’s

petition to modify custody.

[6] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1508-DR-1206 | March 22, 2016 Page 4 of 4