The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the state that a man waived his arguments on appeal because he did not raise a relevant objection at trial, he did not make a cogent argument on appeal, and because his arguments are otherwise meritless.
In Charles D. Howard v. State of Indiana, 14A04-1406-CR-286, Charles Howard challenged his convictions of two counts of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor harassment, Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
In the early morning hours of June 18, 2011, Howard called an American Legion where his wife, Tammy, worked looking for her. He spoke to employee Angie Gottman multiple times that night, yelling and cursing at her as well as calling and hanging up the phone. Gottman called police, who located Howard down the street in front of his house on his phone. When they tried to talk to him, Howard went into his house and officers struggled to arrest him. He appeared intoxicated. His wife gave officers Howard’s phone.
Throughout his criminal proceedings, Howard represented himself at some points and other times he had an attorney. He sought to have the charges dismissed, which the judge denied in 2011. After several filings and a change of judge, in 2014, Howard was convicted of the five charges.
“Howard makes three disjointed arguments on appeal under a general issue of due process. First, he mainly argues that we should reverse and dismiss his convictions for resisting law enforcement and public intoxication because the trial court never ruled on part of his motion to suppress/dismiss. Second, he argues that any evidence obtained after his arrest should have been excluded because the police did not give him a Miranda warning upon his arrest. Third, he contends that the trial court should have dismissed all charges against him pursuant to Criminal Rule 4,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote.
“We conclude that Howard’s arguments are either waived or otherwise without merit because: (1) the trial court issued a ruling on his motion to suppress/dismiss, and Howard did not object to the admission of evidence at trial; (2) the State did not introduce or seek to admit into evidence any of Howard’s post-arrest statements; and (3) Howard did not file a motion for discharge under Criminal Rule 4 or object to the trial court’s setting of any of his trial dates.”