Martin Estrada, Appellant v. State of Indiana, Appellee (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Martin Estrada,¹ pro se, appeals the denial of his Petition for Modification of Sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In January 2008, the trial court sentenced Estrada to concurrent terms of fifty years for “Dealing in Heroin (Possession of Heroin, a Narcotic Drug, Over Three (3) Grams with Intent to Deliver, a Class A Felony,” and twenty years for “Dealing in Heroin, a Narcotic Drug, a Class B felony.” Appellee's Appendix Volume II at 22. Estrada appealed, and this Court affirmed. Martin Estrada a/k/a Martin Pineada Tovar v. State, No. 15A04-0802-CR-65, 2008 WL 3917867 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2008). Estrada filed a petition for post-conviction relief, the trial court denied the motion, and this Court affirmed. Martin Pineda Tovar a/k/a Martin Estrada v. State, No. 15A01-1508-PC-1112, 2016 WL 4577774 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2016), trans. denied.

[3] On March 27, 2017, Estrada filed a Motion for Modification of Sentence. The prosecutor objected. The court denied the motion. On February 7, 2023, Estrada filed a second Petition for Modification of Sentence. On July 10, 2023, the court held a hearing. The prosecutor requested that the court deny Estrada's Petition. The court issued an order denying Estrada's Petition “due to the nature of the offense, proximity within which current offense occurred with prior felony dealing charge in Federal Court and unknown immigration status for probation.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 13.

[4] On January 22, 2025, Estrada filed a third Petition for Modification of Sentence. The prosecuting attorney filed an “Objection to Defendant's Request for Sentence Modification” arguing “[n]o significant change has occurred in the case ․ except that [Estrada] affirms in his filing that he is the subject of a detainer issued by the Federal Immigration Authorities, which clarifies that he is not present legally and should not be released on probation.” Id. at 17. The court denied the Petition.

Discussion

[5] Estrada, pro se, claims the trial court erred in denying his Petition for Modification of Sentence. Pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). This means that pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so. Id. at 983-984. These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent argument on appeal. Id. at 984. We will not become an advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood. Id.

[6] Estrada has failed to comply with the requirements of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides that “[t]he argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning,” and “[e]ach contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule 22.” This Court has stated:

We demand cogent argument supported with adequate citation to authority because it promotes impartiality in the appellate tribunal. A court which must search the record and make up its own arguments because a party has not adequately presented them runs the risk of becoming an advocate rather than an adjudicator. Keller v. State, 549 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. 1990). A brief should not only present the issues to be decided on appeal, but it should be of material assistance to the court in deciding those issues. Hebel v. Conrail, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 652, 659 (Ind. 1985). On review, we will not search the record to find a basis for a party's argument, id., nor will we search the authorities cited by a party in order to find legal support for its position.

Young v. Butts, 685 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). In light of Estrada's failure to develop cogent argument, we find that he waived his claims on appeal.

[7] Waiver aside, we cannot say the trial court erred in denying Estrada's Petition. We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to modify a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Coleman v. State, 248 N.E.3d 629, 632 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17 permits a trial court to modify a convicted person's sentence provided certain requirements are met. Id. at 633. Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(j) provides that “[a] convicted person who is not a violent criminal may file a petition for sentence modification under this section ․ a maximum of two (2) times during any consecutive period of incarceration; without the consent of the prosecuting attorney.” Here, Estrada filed requests for modification of his sentence in March 2017 and February 2023. Because the prosecuting attorney did not consent to Estrada's Petition for Modification of Sentence filed on January 22, 2025, which was his third request during the period of incarceration, it would have been improper under Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(j) for the trial court to grant the Petition. See Coleman, 248 N.E.3d at 633 (holding it would have been improper for the trial court to grant a petition for sentence modification where statute did not authorize the filing of the petition without the consent of the prosecuting attorney). To the extent Estrada argues the court abused its discretion in not holding a hearing, we have observed that “[t]he statute does not require a trial court to hold a hearing in all cases; it only requires the trial court to conduct a hearing if the court has made a preliminary decision that it is going to modify the sentence.” Merkel v. State, 160 N.E.3d 1139, 1141-1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (citation omitted). As the trial court did not indicate it had made a preliminary determination to reduce or modify Estrada's sentence, it was not required to conduct a hearing. See id. The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Estrada's Petition.

[8] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court's January 2008 sentencing order indicates that Estrada is also known as “Martin Pineda-Tovar.” Appellee's Appendix Volume II at 19.

Brown, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Mathias, J., concur.