Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1823 | September 8, 2017 Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Dennis Burgher

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ian McLean

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dennis Burgher,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 8, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1608-CR-1823

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G03-1602-F3-7208

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1823 | September 8, 2017 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary

[1] Dennis Burgher, pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for 

discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4. We dismiss.

Issue

[2] Burgher raises several issues, but we address only a dispositive issue raised by 

the State, which we restate as whether Burgher’s appeal should be dismissed 

because it is moot.

Facts

[3] In 2016, the State charged Burgher with Level 3 felony rape, Level 5 felony 

battery, Level 5 felony criminal confinement, and Level 5 felony strangulation. 

On March 2, 2016, Burgher filed a request for a speedy trial, and the trial court 

set his trial for May 5, 2016. The State filed a request for DNA testing, which 

the trial court granted. On April 14, 2016, the State filed a motion for a 

continuance under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(D), which the trial court granted. 

The trial court then set the trial for July 14, 2016. On July 7, 2016, Burgher 

filed a motion for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B), which the trial 

court denied.

[4] On July 14, 2016, Burgher sought to add a witness, but his trial counsel had 

been unaware of the witness or the substance of her testimony. The trial court 

reset the trial for July 21, 2016, and charged the delay to Burgher. On July 21, 

2016, because an essential witness was not present, the State moved to dismiss 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1823 | September 8, 2017 Page 3 of 4

the charges against Burgher, which the trial court granted. Burgher now 

appeals.

Analysis

[5] On appeal, Burgher argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for 

discharge, that the cause should have been dismissed with prejudice on July 21, 

2016, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. However, the State argues that 

Burgher’s appeal is moot and that we should dismiss. We agree. 

[6] Our courts have held:

“[W]here the principal questions at issue cease to be of real 

controversy between the parties, the errors assigned become 

moot questions and this court will not retain jurisdiction to 

decide them. Stated differently, when we are unable to provide 

effective relief upon an issue, the issue is deemed moot, and we 

will not reverse the trial court’s determination where absolutely 

no change in the status quo will result.”

Breedlove v. State, 20 N.E.3d 172, 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Bell v. State, 

1 N.E.3d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)), trans. denied. The trial court here dismissed 

the charges against Burgher at the State’s request. Even if we were to address 

Burgher’s arguments, “absolutely no change in the status quo” would result. Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1823 | September 8, 2017 Page 4 of 4

Consequently, we are unable to provide effective relief to Burgher on his 

arguments, and the issue is moot.1

[7] We acknowledge that, “although moot cases are usually dismissed, Indiana 

courts have long recognized that a case may be decided on its merits under an 

exception to the general rule when the case involves questions of ‘great public 

interest.’” Id. (quoting In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991)). “‘Cases 

in this category typically raise important policy concerns and present issues that 

are likely to recur.’” Id. (quoting Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 

2009)). This case does not present an important policy question, and we 

decline to address Burgher’s arguments on their merits.

Conclusion

[8] Burgher’s appeal is moot, and we dismiss.

[9] Dismissed.

Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.

 

1 To the extent Burgher argues that the State could refile the charges, we conclude that the issue is not ripe for 

review. “Ripeness relates to the degree to which the defined issues in a case are based on actual facts rather 

than on abstract possibilities, and are capable of being adjudicated on an adequately developed record.” 

Indiana Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 331, 336 (Ind. 1994). The possibility that 

the State could refile charges against Burgher is an abstract possibility not capable of being adjudicated at this 

time.