Silvia Regina Carranza v. Norman Woodruff (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

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