Gregory Vories v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
FILED
Aug 21 2012, 9:23 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
CLERK
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
CHRISTOPHER A. RAMSEY GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Ramsey Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Vincennes, IN
AARON J. SPOLARICH
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GREGORY A. VORIES, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 42A04-1201-CR-32
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE KNOX SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable W. Timothy Crowley, Judge
Cause No. 42D01-1102-FB-31
August 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FRIEDLANDER, Judge
Gregory A. Vories appeals the denial of his motion for modification of bond. The
State responds that we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Vories did not
comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B) for certification of a discretionary interlocutory
appeal.
We dismiss.
On February 14, 2011, the State charged Vories with dealing in methamphetamine, a
class B felony. That same day, the trial court set cash bail at $25,000. Thereafter, on March
2, Vories filed an application for release on recognizance or a reduction of bail. Following a
hearing and agreement by the parties, on May 12, the court allowed Vories to post a ten
percent cash bond subject to specific conditions, including placement on electronic home
monitoring.
On August 3, 2011, the probation department notified the trial court of multiple
violations of Vories’s release conditions. The trial court immediately issued a bench warrant
and reinstated the $25,000 cash bond. On September 23, 2011, Vories filed a motion for
modification of bond, seeking reinstatement of the May 12 order. At the hearing on January
5, 2012, Vories indicated that the basis of his modification motion was that the court failed to
hold an evidentiary hearing before reinstating the original cash bond. The trial court denied
the motion for modification of bond. Vories now appeals.
Contrary to his assertion in his notice of appeal, Vories does not appeal from a final
judgment but rather from an interlocutory order. Appeals from interlocutory orders are
governed by Indiana Appellate Rule 14. Rule 14(A) is an exhaustive list of types of
interlocutory orders that may be taken as a matter of right, and Rule 14(B) provides in part
2
that “[a]n appeal may be taken from other interlocutory orders if the trial court certifies its
order and the Court of Appeals accepts jurisdiction over the appeal.”
In the instant case, the denial of the motion for modification of bond does not qualify
as an interlocutory appeal of right under Rule 14(A). Therefore, Vories was required to first
seek and obtain certification from the trial court authorizing an appeal from the interlocutory
order. Upon obtaining certification, he would then be required to move this court to accept
the interlocutory appeal. Vories did not attempt either of these steps. Accordingly, we are
without jurisdiction to hear Vories’s arguments and we must dismiss the appeal. See Daimler
Chrysler Corp. v. Yaeger, 838 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. 2005); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scrogham, 801
N.E.2d 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.
Dismissed.
BROWN, J., and DARDEN, Senior Judge, concur.
3