Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 1 of 5

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

Clinton Davis

Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Clinton Davis,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

April 16, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A02-1408-CR-603

Appeal from the Madison Circuit

Court.

The Honorable Rudolph R. Pyle III, 

Judge.

Cause No. 48D01-9502-CF-67

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 2 of 5

[1] Clinton Davis appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct sentence. 

Finding that his claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, we affirm. 

Facts

[2] On February 22, 1995, Davis, armed with a handgun, entered a church in 

Anderson where his wife was attending services. He fired the gun twice, once 

towards the ceiling and once towards his wife, missing her. Davis then fled the 

church and hid in an abandoned building. When two police officers arrived 

and approached the building, Davis fled once more. As the officers chased 

Davis through backyards and over fences, Davis fired two shots at the officers, 

missing both times. 

[3] On August 22, 1996, a jury found Davis guilty of three counts of class A felony 

attempted murder, two counts of class D felony resisting law enforcement, and 

one count of class D felony criminal recklessness. The trial court sentenced 

Davis to two consecutive terms of forty years for two of his attempted murder 

convictions. All other terms were ordered to be served concurrent with these 

terms, resulting in a total sentence of eighty years. 

[4] Davis appealed and this Court affirmed in a memorandum decision. Davis v. 

State, No. 48A02-9703-CR-179 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 1998). Our Supreme 

Court denied transfer. Davis then petitioned for post-conviction relief, arguing 

that his convictions arose out of a single episode of criminal conduct and that 

his sentence should therefore have been limited according to Indiana Code 

section 35-50-1-2 as it existed at the time of his offense. The post-conviction 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 3 of 5

court determined that Davis’s actions did not constitute a single episode of 

criminal conduct and this Court affirmed that ruling on appeal. Davis. v. State, 

No. 48A02-0402-PC-191 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2004). Our Supreme Court 

again denied transfer. 

[5] Davis then filed a series of motions to correct sentence. Between 2007 and 

2011, Davis filed four such motions, all of which were denied by the trial court. 

All of these denials were affirmed on appeal. Davis v. State, No. 48A05-1110-

CR-547, 2012 WL 1655162, at *1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. May 9, 2012). 

[6] Davis filed a new motion to correct sentence in the trial court on June 9, 2014. 

The trial court denied this motion on July 28, 2014. Davis then filed a reply to 

the State’s response to his motion to correct sentence. The trial court treated 

this as a motion to reconsider and denied the motion on August 15, 2014. 

Davis now appeals the denial of his fifth motion to correct sentence.1 

Discussion and Decision

[7] We find that Davis’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “The 

doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is 

essentially the same dispute.” Holmes v. State, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000). 

In Holmes, our Supreme Court held that “when this Court decides an issue on 

 

1

In this case, Davis has filed a motion to transfer the transcripts and appendices from his direct appeal, Davis 

v. State, No. 48A02-9703-CR-179, to this Court to be included in the record of this appeal. Accordingly, we 

have taken these records into consideration. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 4 of 5

direct appeal, the doctrine of res judicata applies, thereby precluding its review 

in post-conviction proceedings.” Id. Likewise, the doctrine applies here to 

preclude Davis from re-litigating an issue that was decided by this Court during 

post-conviction proceedings in 2004. 

[8] Here, Davis again argues that his consecutive sentences are improper because 

his convictions arose out of a single episode of criminal conduct. Indiana Code 

section 35-50-1-2 provides:

[E]xcept for crimes of violence,[2] the total of the consecutive terms of 

imprisonment . . . to which the defendant is sentenced for felony 

convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct shall not 

exceed the advisory sentence for a felony which is one (1) class of 

felony higher than the most serious of the felonies for which the person 

has been convicted. 

Consequently, Davis maintains that his sentence should not exceed the 

advisory sentence for murder—one class higher than attempted murder—as it 

existed at the time he committed the offenses. 

[9] However, this Court rejected precisely this argument over ten years ago. On 

appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, we found that Davis’s three 

attempted murder convictions did not arise out of a single episode of criminal 

 

2 This clause was added in 1995 and applies to crimes committed after June 30, 1995. At the time of Davis’s

offense, this statute was not so limited, so Davis’s convictions for attempted murder fall within the sentencing 

limitation. Davis, 48A02-0402-PC-191, slip op. at *5 n. 1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 5 of 5

conduct. Davis v. State, No. 48A02-0402-PC-191, slip op. at *9 (Ind. Ct. App. 

Sept. 17, 2004). The Court noted:

[T]here are two distinct episodes: the initial confrontation with his wife 

inside the church, and the subsequent confrontation with police 

following a chase. The attempted murder of [his wife] and the 

attempted murders of the police officers are “sufficiently unrelated and 

may each be described independently without referring to the specific 

details of the other.” 

Id. (quoting Newman v. State, 690 N.E.2d 735, 737 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). 

Consequently, Davis’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Najam, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.