Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-947 | March 28, 2019 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.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Jose B. Rodriguez

Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jose B. Rodriguez,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

March 28, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-PC-947

Appeal from the Elkhart Superior 

Court

The Honorable Teresa L. Cataldo, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20D03-1504-PC-16

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] Jose B. Rodriguez was convicted of four counts of Class A felony child 

molesting of his step-daughter, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-947 | March 28, 2019 Page 2 of 3

term of forty years. Rodriguez v. State, No. 20A05-1309-CR-491 (Ind. Ct. App. 

Aug. 26, 2014), trans. denied. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief 

arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective, and the post-conviction court 

denied him relief. Rodriguez, pro se, now appeals.

[2] Rodriguez first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in a variety of ways. 

However, he fails to develop any of these arguments with cogent reasoning. 

Rodriguez argues that his trial counsel failed to conduct any pretrial discovery, 

but he does not tell us what discovery counsel should have conducted. He 

argues that his trial counsel failed to conduct an investigation of the facts of the 

case, but he does not tell us what investigation counsel should have conducted. 

He argues that his trial counsel should have sought a limiting instruction “re: 

evidence of prior bad acts of uncharged sexual conduct,” Appellant’s Br. p. 8, 

but he does not tell us what those prior bad acts are or what the limiting 

instruction should have said. He argues that his trial counsel should have 

“investigated certain medical evidence,” id., but he does not identify that 

medical evidence. He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

investigate “a potential witness which [he] deemed to be exculpatory,” id., but 

he does not identify this witness or what this witness would have testified to. 

Finally, he argues that his trial counsel should have subpoenaed his work 

records because they “would have proven conclusively that he was working at 

the times of the alleged events,” id., but he fails to explain how his work records 

would have done so. Moreover, Rodriguez does not provide any citations to 

the record to support any of his allegations. In fact, there is not a single citation 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-947 | March 28, 2019 Page 3 of 3

to the record in his entire brief. For these reasons, we find that Rodriguez has 

waived all of these arguments. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (providing 

that arguments must be supported by cogent reasoning and citations to the 

record).1

[3] Rodriguez next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present 

him with a plea offer from the State. However, he does not allege that the State 

actually made him a plea offer. See Appellant’s Br. p. 9 (“It could be concluded 

that had [Rodriguez] been presented an offer . . ., he may have accepted and 

spared the state the cost of a trial.” (emphasis added)). 

[4] Finally, Rodriguez argues that the Indiana Supreme Court wrongly decided 

Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. 1989), which holds that claims of 

ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel are not judged by the Strickland

v. Washington standard. This, however, is an argument that Rodriguez should 

make to our Supreme Court.

[5] We therefore affirm the post-conviction court. 

[6] Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.

 

1 Rodriguez makes similar claims about his post-conviction counsel, but these arguments are waived for the 

same reasons.