Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 57A03-1502-CR-42 | January 13, 2016 Page 1 of 7

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

John Mazurak

Westville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John Mazurak,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Respondent.

January 13, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

57A03-1502-CR-42

Appeal from the Noble Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Michael J. Kramer,

Special Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

57C01-1301-FC-2

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 57A03-1502-CR-42 | January 13, 2016 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Subsequent to his plea of guilty to Theft, as a Class D felony,1John Mazurak 

(“Mazurak”) filed a variety of pro se motions, including a Motion for Acquittal 

of Burglary, a Motion for Default Summary Judgment for Acquittal of 

Burglary, a Motion to Withdraw Plea, a Motion for Leave to Add Exhibits, a 

request for alleged exculpatory materials, a Motion for Abeyance of 

Withdrawal of Guilty Plea, and a Petition for Order to Delite Non Convictions 

of Non Crimes. The trial court entered an order purportedly denying all 

pending motions, but simultaneously appointed counsel to pursue appropriate 

motions and represent Mazurak at a future hearing. Mazurak appeals. We 

dismiss. 

Issue

[2] Mazurak contends that the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to 

withdraw a guilty plea that was entered involuntarily. He also articulates a 

second issue, claiming that he should have been acquitted of Burglary.2 We 

address the sole dispositive issue: whether there is an appealable final order in 

this case.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.

2

I.C. § 35-43-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 57A03-1502-CR-42 | January 13, 2016 Page 3 of 7

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On December 29, 2012, Kendallville Police officers discovered a hole in the 

fence around the Dalton Foundry. Mazurak was discovered inside, dragging 

copper wire.3

[4] On January 2, 2013, the State charged Mazurak with Theft, Trespass, and 

Resisting Law Enforcement. On the following day, the State filed a Burglary 

charge. On November 14, 2013, Mazurak pled guilty to Theft and the 

remaining charges were dismissed. Mazurak was sentenced to three years 

imprisonment, to be served consecutive to a sentence incurred in another 

county.

[5] On May 23, 2014, Mazurak filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He 

alleged that his plea was involuntary due to incorrect advice from his counsel, 

that the judgment was voidable because of changes to the Indiana Criminal 

Code, and that the theft statute was unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. 

He filed numerous other pro-se motions, and successfully secured a change of 

judge. Ultimately, the matter was set for a hearing on January 9, 2015 to 

determine which motions were pending before the new judge.

 

3 According to Mazurak, he had a “blackout spell” inside the foundry; he was “snapped out of his blackout 

spell by [an] invasion force raid;” he fled from police while in a disoriented state; and, unbeknownst to him, 

he was dragging something caught on his pant leg. (Appellant’s Brief at 5.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 57A03-1502-CR-42 | January 13, 2016 Page 4 of 7

[6] At the hearing, Mazurak was afforded the opportunity to proceed pro-se but –

after some discussion of his limited access to a law library and his difficulty 

with writing due to a stroke – Mazurak reluctantly requested representation by 

appointed counsel. The trial court stated to Mazurak: “I’m just informing you 

that I’m not going to rule on ... any sort of pro se motions they need to be filed 

by your attorney at this point. ... I will wait for your attorney to request a 

hearing and depending upon what motions and how much time the attorney 

thinks it will take I’ll set it then.” (Tr. at 60-62.) However, the trial court 

entered a written order of denial:

As a result of the numerous and confusing motions Defendant 

has filed pro se, and currently being represented by counsel, the 

court now denies all pending motions. Defendant’s counsel may 

file any motions he or she deems appropriate.

(Appellee’s App. at 9; Appellant’s Brief at 22.) Mazurak filed a Notice of 

Appeal. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] It is the duty of the Court of Appeals to determine whether it has jurisdiction 

before proceeding to determine the merits of any case. Montgomery, Zukerman, 

Davis, Inc. v. Chubb Grp. of Ins. Cos., 698 N.E.2d 1251, 1252-53 (Ind. Ct. App. 

1998), trans. denied. When the Court determines that it does not have 

jurisdiction, it shall dismiss the appeal. Id. at 1253.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 57A03-1502-CR-42 | January 13, 2016 Page 5 of 7

[8] A final appealable order or judgment is one that disposes of all of the issues as 

to all of the parties and puts an end to the particular case. Id. The sufficiency of 

a judgment is to be tested by its substance rather than its form. Id. The 

judgment must show distinctly, and not inferentially, that the matters litigated 

have been disposed of in favor of one of the parties and the rights of the parties 

have been finally adjudicated. Id. Even where the trial court’s order lacks some 

of the details or formalities generally required in a judgment, the order is 

nevertheless a final appealable judgment where it disposes of all claims of all of 

the parties. Id.

[9] Indiana Trial Rule 58 provides in pertinent part as follows:

Entry of judgment. Subject to the provisions of Rule 54(B), upon 

a verdict of a jury, or upon a decision of the court, the court shall 

promptly prepare and sign the judgment, and the clerk shall 

thereupon enter the judgment in the Record of Judgments and 

Orders and note the entry of the judgment in the Chronological 

Case Summary and Judgment Docket.

[10] Indiana Trial Rule 54(B) provides in pertinent part as follows:

A judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or 

parties is final when the court in writing expressly determines 

that there is no just reason for delay, and in writing expressly 

directs entry of judgment, and an appeal may be taken upon this 

or other issues resolved by the judgment; but in other cases a 

judgment, decision or order as to less than all the claims and 

parties is not final.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 57A03-1502-CR-42 | January 13, 2016 Page 6 of 7

[11] Here, the trial court and Mazurak discussed and clearly anticipated further 

proceedings to address the merits of Mazurak’s motion for withdrawal of his 

guilty plea. The trial court found the contentions of Mazurak’s numerous 

motions to be confusing and inquired as to whether Mazurak wished to 

continue to pursue his claims pro-se. Mazurak related several concerns as to his 

health, abilities, and access to legal materials and eventually expressed his 

desire to have counsel appointed for him. The trial court verbally assured

Mazurak that an evidentiary hearing would be scheduled upon proper motion 

from his attorney. In these unique circumstances, the trial court did not finally 

dispose of all claims and put an end to the particular case. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the purported appeal.

[12] Dismissed.

Vaidik, C.J., concurs.

Crone, J., dissents with separate opinion.

 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 57A03-1502-CR-42 | January 13, 2016 Page 7 of 7

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John Mazurak,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Respondent.

Court of Appeals Case No.

57A03-1502-CR-42

Crone, Judge, dissenting.

[13] I respectfully dissent. In concluding that the trial court’s judgment does not 

finally dispose of all of Mazurak’s claims, the majority has elevated form over 

substance and unnecessarily prolonged this litigation. The gravamen of 

Mazurak’s numerous motions is that he should be allowed to withdraw his 

guilty plea. The trial court denied those motions, and Mazurak appealed that 

ruling. I would affirm the ruling on the merits for the reasons capably advanced 

by the State in its appellee’s brief. That Mazurak’s appointed counsel can file

additional motions is irrelevant.