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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: 

CHRISTOPHER A. RAMSEY GREGORY F. ZOELLER 

Ramsey Law Office Attorney General of Indiana 

Vincennes, IN 

 AARON J. SPOLARICH 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

GREGORY A. VORIES, ) 

) 

Appellant-Defendant, ) 

) 

vs. ) No. 42A04-1201-CR-32 

) 

STATE OF INDIANA, ) 

) 

Appellee-Plaintiff. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE KNOX SUPERIOR COURT 

The Honorable W. Timothy Crowley, Judge 

Cause No. 42D01-1102-FB-31 

August 21, 2012 

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

FRIEDLANDER, Judge 
2

 Gregory A. Vories appeals the denial of his motion for modification of bond. The 

State responds that we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Vories did not 

comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B) for certification of a discretionary interlocutory 

appeal. 

 We dismiss. 

 On February 14, 2011, the State charged Vories with dealing in methamphetamine, a 

class B felony. That same day, the trial court set cash bail at $25,000. Thereafter, on March 

2, Vories filed an application for release on recognizance or a reduction of bail. Following a 

hearing and agreement by the parties, on May 12, the court allowed Vories to post a ten 

percent cash bond subject to specific conditions, including placement on electronic home 

monitoring. 

 On August 3, 2011, the probation department notified the trial court of multiple 

violations of Vories’s release conditions. The trial court immediately issued a bench warrant 

and reinstated the $25,000 cash bond. On September 23, 2011, Vories filed a motion for 

modification of bond, seeking reinstatement of the May 12 order. At the hearing on January 

5, 2012, Vories indicated that the basis of his modification motion was that the court failed to 

hold an evidentiary hearing before reinstating the original cash bond. The trial court denied 

the motion for modification of bond. Vories now appeals. 

 Contrary to his assertion in his notice of appeal, Vories does not appeal from a final 

judgment but rather from an interlocutory order. Appeals from interlocutory orders are 

governed by Indiana Appellate Rule 14. Rule 14(A) is an exhaustive list of types of 

interlocutory orders that may be taken as a matter of right, and Rule 14(B) provides in part 
3

that “[a]n appeal may be taken from other interlocutory orders if the trial court certifies its 

order and the Court of Appeals accepts jurisdiction over the appeal.” 

 In the instant case, the denial of the motion for modification of bond does not qualify 

as an interlocutory appeal of right under Rule 14(A). Therefore, Vories was required to first 

seek and obtain certification from the trial court authorizing an appeal from the interlocutory 

order. Upon obtaining certification, he would then be required to move this court to accept 

the interlocutory appeal. Vories did not attempt either of these steps. Accordingly, we are 

without jurisdiction to hear Vories’s arguments and we must dismiss the appeal. See Daimler 

Chrysler Corp. v. Yaeger, 838 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. 2005); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scrogham, 801 

N.E.2d 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. 

 Dismissed. 

BROWN, J., and DARDEN, Senior Judge, concur.