Victor A. Salazar v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: VICTOR A. SALAZAR Pendleton, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana ZACHARY J. STOCK Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA VICTOR A. SALAZAR, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 79A02-0611-CR-1045 APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Donald L. Daniels, Judge Cause Nos. 79C01-0112-CF-32 and 79C01-0206-CF-12 October 18, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION RILEY, Judge STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Defendant, Victor A. Salazar (Salazar), appeals the trial court s determination that his former attorneys had complied with its Order to produce Salazar s client files. We dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction. ISSUE Salazar requests that we review one issue: Whether the trial court erred when it determined that his former attorneys had complied with its order to produce Salazar s client files. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 27, 2005, Salazar filed a Petition for Permission to File Belated Notice of Appeal. On March 31, 2005, the trial court denied that petition. On September 6, 2006, Salazar filed a Motion to Compel Attorneys to Produce Client s file under both the cause numbers of his underlying criminal conviction and the action seeking permission to file a belated notice of appeal. Additionally, on September 6, 2006, Salazar requested a hearing by separate motion. On September 8, 2006 the trial court granted Salazar s motion and ordered his former attorneys to produce his files. On September 22, 2006 the trial court held a hearing on the status of Salazar s request. Thomas O Brien (O Brien), one of Salazar s prior attorneys, testified at the hearing that his office had twice provided Salazar with a copy of his file. Thereafter, the trial court found that O Brien had complied with Salazar s request. On October 6, 2006, the trial court made an entry stating that it had interviewed Amy L. 2 Hutchison (Hutchison), another attorney who had represented Salazar, and determined that she had produced to Salazar all materials in her possession. Salazar now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Salazar argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that O Brien and Hutchison had complied with the trial court s order that they produce Salazar s client file. However, we find the determination of the trial court that Salazar s attorneys had complied by producing Salazar s file without an express entry directing judgment pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 54(B) is not a final judgment. See Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H); Johnson v. State, 756 N.E.2d 965, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Nor is the determination an interlocutory order appealable as a matter of right. See App. R. 14(A); Johnson, 756 N.E.2d at 966. Therefore, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to review the trial court s determination that Salazar s former attorneys had complied with the order to produce Salazar s files. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to review the trial courts determination. Dismissed. SHARPNACK, J., and FRIEDLANDER, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
