Concepcion v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Concepcion v. State

760 N.E.2d 1194, 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 139, 2002 WL 80158

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 2002

DocketNo. 79A05-0110-CR-460

StatusPublished

This text of 760 N.E.2d 1194 (Concepcion v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Concepcion v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1194, 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 139, 2002 WL 80158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Comes now the Appellant, by counsel, and files herein Petition to Consider an Interlocutory Appeal, seeking, pursuant to Appellate Rule 4(B)(6)(b) to appeal the interlocutory order of the trial court which denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss/or the Defendant's Motion to Suppress the Results of a Chemical Blood Test;

The Court having examined said Petition, noting that former Appellate Rule 4(B)(6) has been superceded by Appellate Rule 14(B), effective as of January 1, 2001, noting that the Appellant's Proof of Service does not reflect that he served the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Indiana with a copy of his Petition, noting that the trial court, in its order granting Petition to Certify Questions for [1195]*1195Interlocutory Appeal did not make any of the findings comprising grounds for interlocutory appeal as set out in Appellate Rule 14(B)(1)(c) and being duly advised, now FINDS AND ORDERS that the Appellant's Petition to Consider an Interlocutory Appeal should be and the same is denied. Dingman v. State, 602 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.App.1992); Wesley v. State, 696 N.E.2d 882 (Ind.App.1998).

SHARPNACK, BAILEY, J.J., HOFFMAN, Sr.J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Comes now the Appellant, by counsel, and files herein Petition to Consider an Interlocutory Appeal, seeking, pursuant to Appellate Rule 4(B)(6)(b) to appeal the interlocutory order of the trial court which denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss/or the Defendant's Motion to Suppress the Results of a Chemical Blood Test;

The Court having examined said Petition, noting that former Appellate Rule 4(B)(6) has been superceded by Appellate Rule 14(B), effective as of January 1, 2001, noting that the Appellant's Proof of Service does not reflect that he served the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Indiana with a copy of his Petition, noting that the trial court, in its order granting Petition to Certify Questions for [1195]*1195Interlocutory Appeal did not make any of the findings comprising grounds for interlocutory appeal as set out in Appellate Rule 14(B)(1)(c) and being duly advised, now FINDS AND ORDERS that the Appellant's Petition to Consider an Interlocutory Appeal should be and the same is denied. Dingman v. State, 602 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.App.1992); Wesley v. State, 696 N.E.2d 882 (Ind.App.1998).

SHARPNACK, BAILEY, J.J., HOFFMAN, Sr.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

760 N.E.2d 1194, 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 139, 2002 WL 80158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/concepcion-v-state-indctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack