to* correct error. This appeal ensued. Discussion and Decision Standard of Review [7] Norris appeals the trial . court’s judgment for Coordinated Health. But the parties initially dispute our standard of review. Norris asserts that our standard of review is de novo, while Coordinated Health asserts that we must review the trial court’s judgment under the clearly erroneous standard. Norris is correct. ■ -[8] This appeal involves only a written contract and a written, joint stipulation of facts. It is well established that, where “only a. paper record has been presented to the trial court, we are in as good a position as the trial court ... and will employ de novo review.... ” Munster v, Groce, 829 N.E.2d 52, 57 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); see also Houser v. State, 678 N.E.2d 95, 98 (Ind.1997) (<HOLDING>). The clearly erroneous standard, on the other
holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole holding the appellate standard of review in fourth amendment search and seizure cases is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the trial courts finding and the appellate court may only reverse where there is clear error holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that in reviewing trial courts ruling on habeas corpus petition reviewing court must defer to all of trial courts implied factual findings supported by record