Riley, J.
Appellant-Plaintiff, State of Indiana (the State), brings this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s Suppression Order. ….
On October 14, 2016, the State filed an Information, charging Fahringer with strangulation, intimidation, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit rape, two Counts of criminal confinement, and three Counts of rape. On July 6, 2018, Fahringer filed a motion seeking to suppress evidence garnered following the warrantless seizure of his cell phone, which he argued was unreasonable under our federal and state Constitutions. On July 9, 2018, after the selection of a jury but before the jury was sworn, the trial court held a hearing on the suppression motion. Fahringer’s trial was postponed.
On July 12, 2018, the State filed its Motion for Time Extension Regarding Interlocutory Appeal in which it averred as follows:
1. On July 10, 2018[,] the [c]ourt granted [Fahringer’s] motion to suppress the cell phone seizure in the instant cause on the record. The State indicated it would like to seek interlocutory appeal of that decision.
2. At that time, the [c]ourt indicated to the State it would like a formal, written motion for interlocutory appeal be [sic] filed by Friday, July 13, 2018.
3. Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 14 indicates that “[a] motion requesting certification of an interlocutory order must be filed within thirty (30) days after the interlocutory order is noted in the Chronological Case Summary unless the trial court, for good cause, permits a belated motion.” The [c]ourt’s order has not yet been attached to the Chronological Case Summary at the time of the filing of this motion.
4. Additionally, the State has been in contact with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office which handles appellate matters for the State of Indiana. The Attorney General’s office would like a chance to review the [c]ourt’s order before proceeding in this matter.
5. For the above reasons, the State requests that it be allowed to file its motion for interlocutory appeal later than Friday July 13, 2018, but in accordance with Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 14.
On July 16, 2018, the trial court granted the State’s motion seeking to file its request for interlocutory certification later than July 13, 2018. On July 26, 2018, the trial court entered its written order granting Fahringer’s Motion to Suppress, finding that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement did not apply.
On August 21, 2018, the State filed a motion to reconsider the trial court’s grant of Fahringer’s Motion to Suppress in which it argued new bases in opposition to suppression, namely that the search incident to arrest and plain view exceptions applied to the warrantless seizure of Fahringer’s cell phone. On September 21, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s Motion to Reconsider, and, on October 10, 2018, the trial court denied the State’s Motion to Reconsider.
On November 5, 2018, the State filed its Motion to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal …
On November 19, 2018, the trial court certified for interlocutory appeal its July 26, 2018, Suppression Order and its October 10, 2018, order denying the State’s Motion to Reconsider. The trial court found “good cause” to grant certification in that “the State initially orally indicated it intended to request an interlocutory appeal of the [c]ourt’s oral ruling granting [Fahringer’s] Motion to Suppress.” The trial court also found that the State had subsequently filed a timely motion to reconsider and had filed its request for interlocutory appeal certification within thirty days of the denial of that motion to reconsider.
On December 14, 2018, the State moved this court to accept jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. On January 18, 2019, the court’s motions panel granted the State’s motion and accepted jurisdiction. On January 31, 2019, the State filed its Notice of Appeal and thereafter filed a timely Brief of Appellant. On May 23, 2019, Fahringer filed his Brief of Appellee and a separate motion to dismiss in which he argued that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to belatedly seek certification of its interlocutory Suppression Order. … On June 21, 2019, the court’s motions panel held Fahringer’s Motion to Dismiss in abeyance for resolution by the panel assigned to resolve the instant appeal.
The State has sought a discretionary appeal from an interlocutory suppression order. See Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B). The initiation of such an appeal is a two-step process, the first step of which is to obtain certification of the interlocutory order by the trial court. App. R. 14(B)(1). A motion for certification of an interlocutory order must be filed with the trial court within thirty days of the entry of the order on the case’s Chronological Case Summary (CCS) “unless the trial court, for good cause, permits a belated motion.” App. R. 14(B)(1)(a). When a trial court grants a belated motion, it must make a finding that its certification is based on a showing of good cause, and it must set forth its basis for that finding. Id. We review a trial court’s finding of good cause for an abuse of discretion. State v. Foy, 862 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. …
Here, the trial court entered its Suppression Order on the CCS on July 26, 2018. The State did not file its request to certify the Suppression Order for interlocutory appeal until November 5, 2018. The State’s request for certification was filed more than thirty days after the entry of the interlocutory order, and, therefore, was untimely. See App. R. 14(B)(1)(a). … In his Motion to Dismiss, Fahringer argues that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the State’s belated request because the State’s oral notification to the trial court of its intention to pursue an interlocutory appeal did not constitute good cause and the State’s Motion to Reconsider did not toll the time for the State to initiate its appeal.
We agree with Fahringer. Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B)(1)(e) provides that if a trial court fails to rule on or set a certification motion for a hearing within thirty days of its filing, it is deemed denied. Had the trial court considered the State’s oral notification on July 10, 2018, of its intention to pursue an interlocutory appeal to be a request for certification, that request would have been deemed denied after thirty days elapsed—here, on August 9, 2018—without the trial court ruling on the motion or setting it for a hearing. After a certification request is deemed denied by operation of Rule 14(B)(1)(e), a trial court may not resuscitate that request later by belatedly granting the motion. Wise v. State, 997 N.E.2d 411, 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). However, even if the trial court had not construed the State’s oral notification of its intent to seek certification as an actual request to certify, to find such an oral notification to constitute good cause for a belated filing is to essentially allow a litigant to ignore the Rules of Appellate Procedure. …
Instead of filing a motion for certification, the State chose to file a motion to reconsider. Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 53.4(A) provides that a motion to reconsider “shall not delay the trial or any proceedings in the case, or extend the time for any further required or permitted action, motion, or proceedings under these rules.” This court has noted that, although a party may properly file a motion with the trial court to reconsider an interlocutory ruling, the filing of such a motion is “fraught with danger” because it does not extend the time within which to seek an appeal of an interlocutory order. Johnson v. Estate of Brazill, 917 N.E.2d 1235, 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). …
In addition, a motion to reconsider is deemed denied if not ruled upon by the trial court within five days. T.R. 53.4(B). The State’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed August 21, 2018, was deemed denied five days later by operation of Trial Rule 53.4, and so its request for certification, filed on November 5, 2018, was not timely as to the denial of that trial court order. … We find, therefore, that neither rationale relied upon by the trial court in granting certification was within its discretion and that the State failed to show good cause for the belated filing of its request for certification. See Foy, 862 N.E.2d at 1224.
… The State also argued in its response to the Motion to Dismiss that it, the trial court, and Fahringer, all agreed that the State would be allowed to seek interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s Suppression Order. … However, even if the parties and the trial court had all agreed that the State could pursue an interlocutory appeal after the resolution of the State’s Motion to Reconsider, the State does not offer us any authority for its apparent proposition that the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure and Appellate Procedure may be flouted by mutual agreement. …
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court’s certification of its Suppression Order for interlocutory appeal was an abuse of its discretion, and we find no compelling reason to disregard the State’s failure to initiate a timely interlocutory appeal.
Dismissed.
Vaidik, C. J. and Bradford, J. concur