ILNews

Judges dismiss man’s appeal of protection order extension

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a Porter County man’s appeal of a judge’s decision to reset a hearing on a temporary protection order for six months after the victim had an anxiety attack while testifying. The judges held Douglas Allison had to seek a discretionary interlocutory appeal in the matter.

Heather Pepkowski petitioned for an ex parte protection order against Allison, her neighbor, alleging he harassed her and her mother, which constituted stalking. The trial court granted the order and set a hearing for 45 days later. Pepkowski was the first to testify at the hearing, but because she had an apparent anxiety attack while on the stand, Porter Superior Judge Julia Jent continued the hearing for six months. Jent also extended the temporary protection order until that time.

“It was certainly within the trial court’s discretion to continue the matter based on Pepkowski’s apparent anxiety attack at the hearing. A six-month delay, though, defeats the (Indiana Civil Protection Order) Act’s purpose of protecting victims in a fair, prompt, and effective manner. It also runs contrary to Section 34-26-5-10(a), which requires a hearing within thirty days after a request for a hearing is filed ‘unless continued by the court for good cause shown.’ The trial court made no record explaining why a delay of six months was necessary,” Senior Judge Carr Darden wrote in Douglas J. Allison v. Heather Pepkowski, 64A05-1311-PO-554.

Allison argued that the trial court’s Oct.10, 2013, order is appealable as a matter of right because it is an interlocutory order granting or refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction. However, a preliminary injunction may not be granted without notice and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing, Darden pointed out. Allison appeared at the October hearing, but it ended before he had an opportunity to be heard. The court’s extension granted a temporary protection order, not a preliminary injunction.

The judges dismissed Allison’s appeal because temporary protection orders are not appealable as of right.

“To pursue this appeal, Allison was required to seek the trial court’s certification of the order for interlocutory appeal, and upon the court’s certification, to ask us to accept jurisdiction over the appeal,” Darden wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT