Joseph Thomas Barretta, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Joseph Thomas Barretta, pro se, appeals his convictions for Level 5 felony stalking, Level 6 felony intimidation, and Class B misdemeanor harassment. Among other violations of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, Barretta's brief lacks the cogency necessary for appellate review. We therefore find his claims waived and affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2024, the State charged Barretta with misdemeanor criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, and public intoxication. See Cause No. 32D05-2405-CM-000499. At the initial hearing, Barretta requested counsel, and the court appointed A.F., a local criminal defense attorney. In April, Barretta sent A.F. an email accusing her of having “sold [him] out for the sake of [her] career in MAGAland” and stating, “God is going to burn you[.]” Ex. Vol. VI p. 7. A.F. responded that she would withdraw from his case and subsequently withdrew. In May, Barretta emailed A.F. over twenty times. The emails included the following:

Kill yourself [A.F.] Put the knife in your worthless f*cking [A.F.] neck. Hit the vein. And then die your worthless [A.F.] life. Die [A.F.]

***

I'm gonna rip your heart out with my bare hands.

***

I want to murder [A.F.] in front of her family[.]

Id. at 37.

[3] The State charged Barretta with Level 5 felony stalking, two counts of Level 6 felony intimidation, and Class B misdemeanor harassment. A jury trial was held in October 2024. The jury found Barretta guilty of both counts of Level 6 felony intimidation and the Class B misdemeanor but could not reach a verdict as to the Level 5 felony stalking charge. A second jury trial was held in November on that count, and the jury found Barretta guilty of Level 5 felony stalking. The court sentenced Barretta to an aggregate sentence of six years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Barretta now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[4] We first note Barretta proceeds in this matter pro se. “It is well settled that 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 they are “bound to follow” the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure and “must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Id. at 983-84. “These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent arguments on appeal.” Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). The purpose of our appellate rules, Indiana Appellate Rule 46 in particular, is to aid and expedite review and to relieve this Court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case. Id. “We will not become an advocate for a party, nor will we address arguments which are either inappropriate, too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood.” Terpstra v. Farmers & Merchs. Bank, 483 N.E.2d 749, 754 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), trans. denied. As such, while we “prefer to decide issues on the merits,” where a litigant's noncompliance with our appellate rules is “so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived.” Basic, 58 N.E.3d at 984.

[5] Barretta has failed to comply with our appellate rules in several respects which impede our consideration of the issues. First, Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) provides that an appellant's statement of facts “shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review[,]” “shall be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule 22(C)[,]” and “shall be in narrative form[.]” Barretta's statement of facts does not comply with this rule at all. He does not provide the case's relevant facts and only occasionally provides a page reference to the record on appeal. Instead, he presents a non-narrative list of various perceived wrongs done to him by the trial court, prosecutor, and victim.

[6] Second, Barretta's brief violates Appellate Rule 46(A)(8), which requires the appellant's brief to include an “Argument” section that “contain[s] the appellant's contentions [as to] why the trial court ․ committed reversible error.” The rule also requires each contention to be “supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on.” Id. Yet Barretta's argument section consists largely of unsupported, conclusory assertions. He fails entirely to support these contentions with citations to the record and rarely cites to relevant legal authorities. For example, he argues the court erred in not allowing him to strike certain prospective jurors for cause. But in doing so, he does not provide any legal authority—aside from a cursory mention of “the Indiana Constitution Article 1-13 and the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution”—nor does he provide the relevant legal analysis. Appellant's Br. p. 34. Where he does mention legal authority, he fails to explain its application. For example, Barretta argues “the [S]tate presented evidence that was obtained from an illegal search” and cites to the state and federal constitutions. Id. at 58. But again, he does not lay out the relevant legal framework under either constitution, let alone apply it.

[7] Most concerningly, Barretta's argument section lacks the cogency necessary for our appellate review. Rather than provide an argument supported by cogent reasoning, Barretta's argument section consists primarily of unsupported accusations against the judge, prosecutor, victim, court employees, and witnesses. See id. at 43 (“The judge's obnoxious habit of raising questions and then interrupting your reply ․ proves that interruption and harassment is the goal[.]”), see also p. 55 (“Due to efforts of the prosecution to suppress evidence collected on 5/2/24, I only figured out the impossibly fast police report days before the [second] trial, and I did not expect the detective to lie about it so shamelessly and in a way so easily provable.”), p. 57 (“I figured that this was, at the least, a dirty trick orchestrated by the court employees and the prosecution to hamper my ability to discriminate between prospective jurors; and at the worst, it was an awful play to allow for the wholesale rearrangement of the jury pool while leaving me no ability to catch on to the scheme.”).

[8] Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) requires an appellant's contentions to be “supported by cogent reasoning.” “We demand cogent argument ․ because it promotes impartiality in the appellate tribunal.” Young v. Butts, 685 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). “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.” Id. Therefore, “[w]e will not ․ address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.” Basic, 58 N.E.3d at 984. Such arguments are waived. Id.

[9] Barretta's noncompliance with our appellate rules, specifically with regard to the statement of facts and argument sections, does not provide us with sufficient understanding of the nature of the case and his legal arguments. Ultimately, these errors substantially impede our ability to review his claims. As such, we conclude he has waived his claims for appellate review. We therefore affirm his convictions.¹

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Barretta has also filed five motions entitled as follows: Motion Regarding Appellee's Brief, Motion for Audio Files, Motion for Audio Files, Motion for Proper Labeling, and Motion for Ruling. These motions do not comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 34(E). We deny each by separate order issued contemporaneously with this opinion.

Scheele, Judge.

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