Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A04-1411-MI-516 | September 24, 2015 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT, PRO SE

Jeffrey Settle

New Castle Correctional Facility

New Castle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Kristin Garn

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeffrey Settle,

Appellant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee.

September 24, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

33A04-1411-MI-516

Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court

Trial Court Cause No.

33C02-1407-MI-72

The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane, 

Judge

Pyle, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Appellant/Petitioner, Jeffery Settle (“Settle”), appeals the trial court’s denial of 

his petition to remove his designation as a sex offender. On appeal, Settle 

argued that the parole board’s requirement that he register as a sex offender 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A04-1411-MI-516 | September 24, 2015 Page 2 of 5

violated the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto penalties. 

However, Settle did not include several documents in his Appellant’s Appendix 

that were necessary for our review. We held his appeal in abeyance for thirty 

days and ordered him to file a supplemental appendix with those documents 

within that time, but he did not do so. As a result, we now dismiss his appeal.

[2] We dismiss with prejudice. 

Issue

Whether Settle fulfilled his burden of supporting his appeal with 

the documents necessary for review. 

Facts

[3] Because Settle failed to include documentation relating to his prior and current 

convictions in his Appellant’s Appendix, other than documentation of his 

current credit time on various offenses, the specific facts regarding those 

convictions are not a part of the record. However, he alleges that prior to the 

enactment of the Indiana statutory scheme requiring sex offenders to register on 

the sex offender registry, he was convicted of a sex offense and escape. At the 

time of this appeal, he was still serving his sentence for escape. 

[4] On September 2, 2014, Settle filed a “Supplement [sic] Petition to Remove the 

Designation as Sex Offender” in which he alleged that, as a result of his sex 

offense, he had been required to register as a sex offender and participate in the 

Sex Offender Management and Monitoring Program in the Indiana 

Department of Correction. He argued that this requirement violated Indiana’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A04-1411-MI-516 | September 24, 2015 Page 3 of 5

constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto application of penalties as he 

was convicted of his sex offense prior to Indiana’s statutory requirement to 

register as a sex offender. On October 8, 2014, the trial court denied Settle’s 

petition to remove his designation as a sex offender. 

[5] Subsequently, Settle appealed the trial court’s order denying his petition. In his 

Appellant’s Brief, he argued that the parole board’s requirement that he register 

as a sex offender violated the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition on ex post 

facto penalties.1 However, Settle did not include several documents in his 

Appellant’s Appendix that were necessary for our review. As a result, on July 

21, 2015, we entered an order holding Settle’s appeal in abeyance for thirty (30) 

days and ordering him to file a supplemental appendix including: (a) Executive 

Directive 12-53, which was mentioned in an “Offender Grievance Response 

Report” that Settle included in his Appellant’s Appendix; (b) Exhibits A and B 

of his “Supplement [sic] Petition to Remove the Designation as Sex Offender;” 

(c) the judgments of conviction for his convictions; (d) the sentencing orders for 

his convictions; (e) any documents showing whether he had been discharged, 

on parole, and/or had his parole revoked under any cause number; and (f) the 

chronological case summaries for his criminal cases within thirty (30) days or 

face dismissal. 

 

1 Notably, this is a different argument than his argument before the trial court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A04-1411-MI-516 | September 24, 2015 Page 4 of 5

[6] On August 27, 2015, Settle tendered his supplemental appendix. However, in 

addition to being untimely, the appendix did not comply with our appellate 

rules, and it was not considered filed. 

Decision

[7] On appeal, Settle has not provided us with a sufficient record to review his case. 

Although he acknowledges that he was convicted of a sex offense, he has not 

included any documents in the record relating to that offense, such as the 

judgment of conviction, chronological case summary, or any documents 

concerning his discharge of, or parole on, the offense. He contends that he 

should not be required to register as a sex offender because his conviction 

occurred prior to the Indiana statutory requirement to register as a sex offender, 

but there is nothing in the record to even show the date of his conviction. 

[8] It is the appellant’s duty to present an adequate record clearly showing an

alleged error, and failure to do so waives the issue. Thompson v. State, 761 

N.E.2d 467, 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Although Settle is representing himself, 

we hold pro se litigants to the same standards regarding rule compliance as

attorneys duly admitted to the practice of law, and pro se litigants must comply 

with the appellate rules to have their appeals determined on the merits. Smith v. 

State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

[9] Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 49(B), “[a]ny party’s failure to include any 

item in an Appendix shall not waive any issue or argument.” In Johnson v. 

State, 756 N.E.2d 965, 967 (Ind. 2001), our supreme court indicated that “[t]he 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A04-1411-MI-516 | September 24, 2015 Page 5 of 5

better practice for an appellate court to follow in criminal appeals where an 

Appendix is not filed or where an Appendix is missing documents required by 

rule is to order compliance with the rules within a reasonable period of time, 

such as thirty days.” However, the Johnson Court also held that “[i]f an 

appellant inexcusably fails to comply with an appellate court order, then more 

stringent measures, including dismissal of the appeal, would be available as the 

needs of justice might dictate.” Id.

[10] Here, we held Settle’s appeal in abeyance and ordered him to file a 

supplemental appendix including the documents necessary for our review 

within thirty (30) days or face dismissal. He did not timely file a supplemental 

appendix within those thirty days, and the supplemental appendix he eventually 

tendered still failed to comply with the appellate rules. Accordingly, because 

we do not have the necessary information upon which to base a decision, we 

dismiss Settle’s appeal. See id.

[11] Dismissed with prejudice.

Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.