Opinion
No. 27A02–1403–CR–178.
12-02-2014
Roy E. DISNEY, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
Roy E. Disney, Westville, IN, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Chandra K. Hein, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Roy E. Disney, Westville, IN, Appellant Pro Se.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Chandra K. Hein, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
MEMORANDUM DECISION—NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge.
Roy Disney appeals the trial court's denial of his “Verified Order to be Released Without Parole After Completed Term of Imprisonment.” Appellant's Br. p. 1. Because Disney's violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure prevent us from reaching the merits of his appeal, we find that he has waived the issues raised and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On October 1, 2013, Disney pleaded guilty to Operating a Motor Vehicle While Privileges are Forfeited for Life, a class C felony, as well as a violation of his probation. Disney was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years. On March 5, 2014, Disney filed his request to be released without parole after his completed term of imprisonment and the trial court denied this motion on March 7, 2014. Disney now appeals.
Ind.Code § 9–30–10–17.
On appeal, Disney has committed numerous violations of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Perhaps most importantly, Disney has failed to include the trial court's order or the motion at issue in his appendix—a violation of Appellate Rule 50(B). As Disney also fails to provide a description of the contents of this motion in his brief, we are unable to ascertain the nature of the argument he made before the trial court. While we often tolerate minor infractions of the appellate rules so that we may decide appeals on their merits, Disney's noncompliance prevents us from reaching the merits of this appeal. Ramsey v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't. of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 490 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). He has, therefore, waived the issue.
Disney has failed to comply with numerous other appellate rules, including Rule 46(A)(8)(a) regarding appellant's briefs, which provides that “[t]he argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning .”
--------
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
VAIDIK, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.