Jean-Paul B. Kalonji v. State of Indiana

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Then we address Kalonji’s citation to nonexistent legal authority and mischaracterization of caselaw. In addition to asking this Court to take judicial notice of the APRA Responses, Kalonji’s Motion for Judicial Notice of Legislative Facts and Alternative Relief also requested that this Court remand this case for a “limited evidentiary hearing,” reverse the trial court’s judgment based on violations of due process, and certify his constitutional questions for review by our Supreme Court. Kalonji v. State, Cause No. ... Section 2—Kalonji, a Pro Se Litigant, Is Held to the Same Legal Standards as Licensed Attorneys, and We Admonish Kalonji for Citing to Nonexistent Legal Authority and Mischaracterizing Caselaw. [25] “It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. This means that pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citation omitted). “These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent arguments on appeal.” Dridi v.

Authorities cited in the passage: Supreme Court. Kalonji v. State · Basic v. Amouri, 58 N