Kimual D. Stevens, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In April 2025, Stevens was on home detention following his conviction for Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine. Pursuant to his home detention agreement, Stevens waived his right to warrantless and suspicionless search and seizure. On April 29, community corrections and local police officers conducted a field check of Stevens’ apartment and located methamphetamine, mushrooms, scales, and smoking devices. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked Stevens’ home detention and ordered that he serve his eleven-year suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. Stevens appeals. We conclude that Stevens waived his arguments by failing to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

[2] Initially, Stevens’ Statement of the Issues does not make clear what evidence, conduct, or other matter is at issue in this appeal. Appellate Rule 46(A)(4) provides that the “statement shall concisely and particularly describe each issue presented for review.” Stevens states, “This Court should set aside the trial Court's finding of revocation of home detention because an officer used methods that offend the conscience forbidden by the 14th Amendment fundamental due process clause which requires the Court to withhold the legal process when outrageous conduct occurs.” Appellant's Br. p. 6. Stevens does not explain what “methods” he refers to or how such “methods” impacted the court's revocation of his home detention. In his Argument section, Stevens fails to provide clarification and instead states, “The issue is not sufficiency of the evidence. The issue is outrageous government conduct and the 14th Amendment. Nobody can be deprived of liberty without due process of law.” Id. at 10. Stevens fails to particularly state what conduct he requests that we review, what liberty interest was at stake, or how such conduct deprived him of any liberty interest.

[3] Stevens’ Argument section is even more problematic. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) provides that an appellant's argument must contain, among other things, “the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning” and “citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on.” In addition, the rule requires a “concise statement of the applicable standard of review” for each issue, “a brief statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary for consideration of the issues presented on appeal, including a statement of how the issues relevant to the appeal were raised and resolved by ․ [the] trial court.” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8). Stevens’ Argument fails to satisfy these requirements.

[4] First, to the extent that Stevens intended to focus on a due process violation, he fails to provide the standard of review for due process owed to a defendant in a home detention revocation proceeding. To the extent that he intended to argue certain evidence was erroneously admitted, he also fails to provide a relevant standard of review. For over six pages, Stevens provides a stream of thought regarding general rights of probationers, ideas about due process, and concepts of fairness. See Appellant's Br. pp. 10-17. He then baldly asserts that an officer used a “tactic of deceit, lie and trickery for gain” but never explains how this tactic, if used, relates to any of the precedent or legal standards he outlines. Id. at 17. As to procedural or substantive facts necessary for consideration of his argument, Stevens states the following:

First, public agent Officer George told Mr. Stevens that if he talked he would not go to jail.

“Like I said, this is gonna go two ways, either you go to jail right now or you work with me.” (Media Exhib. Vol. 4, p. 2 Time Stamp 14:19:18--14:19:22)

Second, Mr. Stevens talked and disclosed evidence after the assurance.

“Q. Okay. Now, at the time you spoke to Mr. Kimual Stevens, and you did not read him his rights, you only said, where is it at, correct?

A. Correct.” (Tr. of Evid. Vol. 2, p. 40)

“I assumed he knew about it once he told me where the location was, correct, in his bedroom.” (Tr. of Evid. Vol. 2, p. 41)

Third, the ruse worked. The officer got the dope and Mr. Stevens went to jail.

“Q. Now, he answered your question, correct?

A. Which question?

Q. Where it's at.

A. Correct.

Q. And he's in jail, correct?

A. Correct.” (Tr. of Evid. Vol. 2, p. 44)

Id. at 18 (errors in original). From this, Stevens asserts that the officer's use of the phrase “like I said” means the officer lied to him. Finally, Stevens spends four and a half pages discussing the morality of lying from the perspectives of various sources including the Quran, the Bible, Thomas Jefferson, and the authors of The Berenstain Bears. Id. at 18-21. He fails to demonstrate how the lie, if it occurred, violated his due process rights or led to an error by the trial court.

[5] Given the lack of cogent argument and other significant rule violations, Stevens 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 revocation of Stevens’ home detention.

[6] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.