ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT APPELLEE PRO SE FILED William A. McCarthy S.H. Oct 13 2020, 8:42 am Tamara B. Wilson Okmulgee, Oklahoma CLERK Indiana Legal Services, Inc. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals Indianapolis, Indiana and Tax Court IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA H.H., October 13, 2020 Appellant/Cross-Appellee-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-PO-926 v. Appeal from the Hancock Superior Court S.H., The Honorable Marie D. Castetter, Appellee/Cross-Appellant-Respondent. Judge The Honorable Cody B. Coombs, Commissioner Trial Court Cause No. 30D01-2001-PO-151 Bailey, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PO-926 | October 13, 2020 Page 1 of 7 Case Summary [1] H.H. requested a two-year protective order against her ex-husband, S.H., pursuant to the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act, Indiana Code Section 34- 26-5-1, et. seq. (“the Act”). H.H. was granted a one-year protective order and appeals to challenge the duration.1 We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] H.H. and S.H. married in 1994 and lived together until S.H. was incarcerated in 2005. When S.H. was released in 2018, he resided with H.H. in an apartment she had leased. However, the relationship deteriorated, and the parties 1 S.H. filed a pro-se appellee’s brief, contending that the duration of the order is immaterial because the order is contrary to law. He articulates issues for cross-appeal, claiming (1) the order was procured by witness lies and attorney trickery; (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel appeared at the hearing and did not request a continuance to secure S.H.’s transport from incarceration and his personal appearance; and (3) a protective order amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of double jeopardy. The tenor of S.H.’s brief is reflected in the following: “The order was issued without evidence, just ‘talks.’ H.H. is proficient in lying and acting as a victim and disabled.” Appellee’s Brief at 15. “Protective orders create hardship and pain for many innocent good men and they became subject for extortion and abuses by their wives or ex-wives who took advantage of court ruling in their benefits.” Id. at 16. “Protective order cases are unconstitutional and unlawful because it became used as a tool to trick and to cheat justice and for extortion to steal Husbands estates and money mostly by bad wives and women who [are] cheating on husbands and as in this case to continue incest crimes without presence of husband who can stop or preventing these incest crimes and cheating of husbands.” Id. at 13. Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires that “The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each 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.” Apart from the use of incendiary language, S.H. fails to develop an argument supported by cogent reasoning and relevant authority. Accordingly, we do not substantively address his purported cross-appeal issues. See Tipton v. Hofmann, 118 N.E.3d 771, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals