Opinion
23A-JP-2749
04-25-2024
Darrell Laray Jones, Appellant-Petitioner v. Chastity Alexis Tramell, Appellee-Respondent
APPELLANT PRO SE Darrell Laray Jones Indianapolis, Indiana. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Katherine A. Rich The Northside Law Firm Westfield, Indiana.
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Melanie Kendrick Trial Court Cause No. 49D22-1903-JP-10912.
APPELLANT PRO SE Darrell Laray Jones Indianapolis, Indiana.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Katherine A. Rich The Northside Law Firm Westfield, Indiana.
Judge Vaidik Judges May and Kenworthy concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Vaidik, Judge.
[¶1] This is a paternity case involving Darrell Laray Jones ("Father"), Chastity Alexis Tramell ("Mother"), and their young child, K.J. On November 9, 2023, the trial court held a hearing-which Father didn't attend-and then issued an order that, among other things, awarded sole legal and physical custody to Mother, awarded supervised parenting time to Father, and directed Father to pay child support of $168 per week plus an arrearage of $31,775. Father, acting pro se, now appeals.
[¶2] Mother contends that Father waived his arguments by failing to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. We agree. Father's brief doesn't include a statement of issues, a statement of facts, a summary of argument, or a standard of review, as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(4), (6), (7), and (8). There are no citations to the record on appeal or to legal authority, as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(5), (6), and (8). Most importantly, Father's contentions-to the extent he has offered any-aren't supported by cogent reasoning as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Rather, his brief seems to be a rundown of the testimony and arguments he would have presented if he had appeared at the hearing in November 2023. See, e.g., Appellant's Br. p. 9 ("The appellant wishes to challenge certain statements made in the transcript and draw attention to the possibility that the appellee's legal defense summary testimony may have influenced the summary testimony of the Guardian ad litem and even affected the lower court's ruling."). But an appeal isn't a second bite at the apple. Our role is to review the record as presented to the trial court to determine whether any error was committed. We can't consider additional evidence or issues that weren't presented below. Israel v. Israel, 189 N.E.2d 170, 177 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022) ("[A]n issue raised by an appellant for the first time on appeal is waived."), reh'g denied, trans. denied; Saler v. Irick, 800 N.E.2d 960, 970 n.7 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) ("[N]ew evidence may not be submitted to the court for the first time upon appeal.").
[¶3] Given the lack of cogent argument and the other significant rule violations, Father has waived appellate review. See Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014) ("While we prefer to decide cases on their merits, alleged errors are waived where an appellant's noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors."), trans. denied. We therefore affirm the trial court's order.
[¶4] Affirmed.
May, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.