Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1609 | September 23, 2020 Page 1 of 3

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

I. Marshall Pinkus

Pinkus & Pinkus

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Tyler G. Banks

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Russell Rouzier,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Respondent

September 23, 2020 

Court of Appeals Case No. 

19A-PC-1609 

Appeal from the 

Marion Superior Court 

The Honorable 

Lisa F. Borges, Judge 

Trial Court Cause No. 

49G04-1612-PC-48935 

Vaidik, Judge.

[1] In February 2016, Russell Rouzier was convicted of Level 3 felony criminal

confinement and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and sentenced to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1609 | September 23, 2020 Page 2 of 3

twelve years. We affirmed on direct appeal. See Rouzier v. State, No. 49A04-

1603-CR-495 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2016). 

[2] In December 2016, Rouzier filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing

that his trial counsel was ineffective on several grounds. After an evidentiary 

hearing at which Rouzier was the only witness to testify, the post-conviction 

court denied relief. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 24-39.

[3] Rouzier now appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying 

his petition. Rouzier’s arguments are contained within a single paragraph, and 

that paragraph is simply a series of conclusory allegations that his trial counsel 

was ineffective. Specifically, Rouzier claims there was “no consistent

representation provided by the Marion County Public Defenders Agency,” that 

his trial counsel was not “prepared” for trial, that his trial counsel did not let 

him participate in the jury-selection process, that his trial counsel did not let

him testify, that his trial counsel “allowed” the State to play only a portion of a 

recording, and that his trial counsel should have objected to pictures of a knife 

found on the scene. See Appellant’s Br. pp. 11-12. Rouzier does not develop 

these arguments or provide any citations to the record to support them. And 

although Rouzier cites Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which sets 

forth a two-part test for evaluating ineffectiveness claims, he fails to perform the 

analysis required by that case. That is, he doesn’t argue how trial counsel’s 

performance was deficient in any detail beyond a mere allegation of deficiency

or argue how that deficient performance prejudiced him.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1609 | September 23, 2020 Page 3 of 3

[4] A party waives an issue where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or 

provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record. Smith v. State,

822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied; see also Ind. 

Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring the appellant’s arguments to be 

“supported by cogent reasoning” and “citations to the authorities, statutes, and 

the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on”). The State claims

that Rouzier has waived all his arguments, and notably Rouzier didn’t file a 

reply brief to dispute that claim. We agree with the State that Rouzier has 

waived all his arguments and therefore affirm the post-conviction court. 

[5] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Baker, Sr. J., concur.