GRAVES v. PATTERSON (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Destinee Patterson filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to Melvin Graves, Graves failed to appear telephonically from the correctional facility where he was incarcerated for their final hearing. The court proceeded with the hearing in his absence and entered a dissolution decree. Graves filed a motion to correct error arguing he was not responsible for his failure to appear, and the court denied the motion. Graves now appeals, claiming it was a violation of his due process rights under the Indiana and United States Constitutions to proceed in his absence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] After being married for six years, Patterson filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to Graves in the summer of 2024. Graves was incarcerated at the time but filed a response denying the petition and asked for a hearing. The court scheduled a final hearing for October and noted that Graves would “appear by telephone” from the correctional facility. Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 13. On the date of the hearing, Graves failed to appear. Proceeding in his absence, the court entered a dissolution decree awarding Patterson sole possession of her vehicle, finding the parties had equitably divided all remaining property, and restoring Patterson's maiden name to her.

[3] Graves filed a motion to correct error, claiming he failed to appear because he was told by the correctional facility “that the Johnson County Clerk's Office failed to submit a request to appear by telephone” and asking that the hearing be rescheduled. Id. at 16. The court held a hearing on Graves’ motion at which he appeared pro se and by Zoom. The court denied his motion, and Graves appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[4] As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge that Graves proceeds in this case pro se and note that “such litigants are held to the same standard as trained counsel and are required to follow procedural rules.” Meisberger v. Bishop, 15 N.E.653, 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). As such, we will not “indulge in any benevolent presumptions on [his] behalf, or waive any rule for the orderly and proper conduct of [his] appeal.” Id. (quoting Ankeny v. Governor of State of Ind., 916 N.E.2d 678, 679 n. 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), reh'g denied, trans. denied).

[5] We also note that Patterson did not file an appellee brief, and we will not assume the burden of developing arguments on her behalf. Id. When an appellee does not file a brief, we will reverse if the appellant establishes prima facie error. Id. Prima facie error “is an error at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Zoller v. Zoller, 858 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

[6] Graves asserts the trial court erred in conducting the dissolution proceeding in his absence, claiming it violated his due process rights under both the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions. However, we cannot review his claim because it rests, in important part, on information we lack. Graves did not request or provide a transcript or other record of the hearings as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 9(F)(5). See Maw v. Pringle, 263 N.E.3d 790, 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (discussing an alternative means of producing a record under Appellate Rule 31(A)). Rule 9 requires an appellant's Notice of Appeal to designate “all portions of the Transcript necessary to present fairly and decide the issues on appeal.” Ind. Appellate Rule 9(F)(5). Our Supreme Court has held that “[a]lthough not fatal to the appeal, ․ failure to include a transcript works a waiver of any specifications of error which depend upon the evidence.” Campbell v. Criterion Grp., 605 N.E.2d 150, 160 (Ind. 1992) (internal citation omitted).

[7] Aside from the court's orders and Graves’ allegation as to what occurred, we have no evidence of what transpired either at the dissolution hearing or the hearing on his motion to correct error. Without a record of the proceedings, we cannot ascertain why the court proceeded in Graves’ absence or whether Graves was, in fact, responsible for the error. Cf. Sabo v. Sabo, 812 N.E.2d 238, 245-46 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (finding the court erred in holding the hearing with the husband in absentia because the court's statements at the hearing showed the husband, “through no fault of his own[,] was denied his right to defend himself” at the dissolution hearing).

[8] The minimal record we have reveals the trial court ordered Graves to appear by telephone from the facility, and a copy of the order was sent to the facility. See Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 3 (service confirmed is CCS), 13. However, what occurred at the outset of the final hearing when Graves’ absence would have been addressed is unknown. Despite Graves’ assertion that he was absent through no fault of his own, he has submitted no record evidence to support that claim on appeal, and without the transcripts we cannot know whether he submitted any such evidence to the court below.

[9] Graves relies on Sabo and Murfitt v. Murfitt to support his assertions, however both cases are distinguishable from his own. As noted above, the panel in Sabo had a record of the dissolution proceedings in which it could determine that the trial court knew the husband was absent due to no fault of his own and still proceeded in his absence. 812 N.E.2d at 245-46. In Murfitt, the trial court made the outright decision to deny husband's motions to appear by alternative means despite his incarceration, and the appellate court found this to be a violation of husband's right to protect his interests in the dissolution proceeding. 809 N.E.2d 332, 334-35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (noting Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution protects a prisoner's right to “prosecute his claim while still incarcerated[,]” including claims regarding the “distribution of [ ] marital property”).

[10] But here, unlike in Sabo, there is no record before us that shows what transpired at the hearing when the trial court decided to proceed in absentia. And unlike in Murfitt, Graves was granted an alternative means of appearing at the proceeding per the court's own order. He then failed to appear for a reason that is unknown to us without a transcript or other record of the hearings below, preventing us from reviewing Graves’ contention. Thus, Graves has waived his argument on appeal. See, e.g., Meisberger, 15 N.E.3d at 659 (holding that the father's arguments that required review of the evidence or testimony presented at the hearing were waived because he failed to produce a transcript or statement of the evidence under Appellate Rule 31).

Conclusion

[11] Having waived his only argument, Graves failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[12] Affirmed.

DeBoer, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.