997 N.E.2d 411
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- M.W. found video files on David Wise’s mobile phone showing sexual acts performed on her while unconscious; she recorded the phone playback with a camcorder and altered file names on the phone.
- The State charged Wise with one count of Class B felony rape and five counts of criminal deviate conduct.
- Wise filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude the camcorder recordings; the trial court denied the motion after a September 26, 2012 hearing.
- Wise timely filed a motion to certify the trial court’s order for discretionary interlocutory appeal on October 22, 2012; the State responded within the rule period.
- Under Appellate Rule 14(B)(1)(e), a trial court’s failure to set a hearing or rule within 30 days causes the certification motion to be deemed denied; the CCS showed no hearing, so the motion was deemed denied on November 22, 2012.
- The trial court later purported to grant certification on December 4, 2012, but the Court of Appeals concluded the belated grant could not revive a motion already deemed denied and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s belated certification of an interlocutory appeal is effective after the certification motion was deemed denied under App. R. 14(B)(1)(e) | The State maintained procedural requirements control and implied the trial court’s certification (as entered) should be respected | Wise argued his timely motion to certify (filed within 30 days) and the trial court’s later certification permitted interlocutory review | The court held the motion was deemed denied 30 days after filing; the subsequent December 4 order could not revive it, so certification was ineffective and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the Court of Appeals may reconsider its motions panel’s prior acceptance of interlocutory jurisdiction | N/A (State asked reconsideration of motions panel acceptance) | Wise proceeded based on the motions panel’s acceptance | The court exercised its authority to reconsider, concluded jurisdiction was lacking, and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foy, 862 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining App. R. 14(B) two-step interlocutory process)
- Wesley v. State, 696 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (holding lack of proper certification deprives court of interlocutory jurisdiction)
- Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. v. Mayberry, 854 N.E.2d 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (court may reconsider motions panel rulings on interlocutory jurisdiction)
- Treacy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (noting appellate courts may reconsider motions panel rulings)
- Tarrance v. State, 947 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (jurisdictional issues may be raised sua sponte)
- Johnson v. Estate of Brazill, 917 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (motions to reconsider do not extend time for other required actions under trial rules)