PATRICK v. STATE (2022)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Timothy L. Patrick appeals his sentence of 100 years, with ten years suspended to probation, for two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting and one count of Level 4 felony child molesting. In his statement of the issue, he asserts his sentence “is inappropriate in light of the character of the offender.” Appellant's Br. p. 4. The remainder of his brief, however, is woefully inadequate. His statement of facts is one sentence and includes no details of his crimes, in violation of Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) (providing that the appellant's statement of facts “shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review”). His argument consists of two conclusory sentences and includes no citations to the record, in violation of Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (providing that the appellant's argument must be supported by “cogent reasoning” and “citations to ․ the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on”). Patrick has essentially made no argument at all. Therefore, we find his appellate claim waived, and we affirm his sentence. See Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (“While we prefer to decide issues on the merits, where the appellant's noncompliance with appellate rules is so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived.”), reh'g denied.

[2] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Najam, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.