Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1608-MI-1865 | March 10, 2017 Page 1 of 9

APPELLANT, PRO SE

James E. Manley

New Castle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Aaron T. Craft

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James E. Manley,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

Keith Butts,

Appellee-Respondent.

March 10, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

33A05-1608-MI-1865

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C02-1604-MI-37

Pyle, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] James E. Manley (“Manley”), pro se, appeals the Henry Circuit Court’s order 

dismissing his petition for writ of state habeas corpus as an unauthorized 

successive petition for post-conviction relief. Manley contends that his petition 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1608-MI-1865 | March 10, 2017 Page 2 of 9

was not an unauthorized successive petition for post-conviction relief and that, 

even if it were, the Henry Circuit Court should have transferred it to his court of 

conviction in Monroe County. Because Manley’s habeas petition is challenging 

the validity of his convictions and sentence and because Indiana PostConviction Rule 1(1)(c) requires that, under such circumstances, a trial court is 

required to transfer the petition to the court where the petitioner was convicted, 

we reverse the Henry Circuit Court’s dismissal of Manley’s petition and instruct 

the trial court to transfer the petition to Manley’s conviction court, the Monroe 

Circuit Court, where it shall be treated as a post-conviction petition.

1

 

[2] We reverse and remand with instructions.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Manley’s state habeas 

corpus petition as an unauthorized successive petition for postconviction relief.

Facts

[3] In 1997, Manley was convicted, in Monroe County, of two counts of Class A 

felony child molesting and two counts of Class B felony child molesting for acts 

committed against his daughter. The Monroe Circuit Court sentenced Manley 

 

1 Upon receiving Manley’s habeas corpus petition and treating it as a post-conviction petition, Manley’s 

conviction court, the Monroe Circuit Court, may apply Post-Conviction Rule 1(12), which governs 

successive petitions for post-conviction relief.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1608-MI-1865 | March 10, 2017 Page 3 of 9

to an aggregate term of fifty-five (55) years in the Indiana Department of 

Correction. 

[4] Thereafter, Manley filed a direct appeal, and this Court affirmed his convictions 

in a memorandum opinion in 1999. See Manley v. State, 53A04-9806-CR-333 

(Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 18. 1999). He then appealed from the denial of his petition 

for post-conviction relief in 2001, and we affirmed that judgment as well. See

Manley v. State, 53A01-0103-PC-107 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2001) (holding, in

part, that Manley had waived his constitutional challenges to the child 

molesting statute because he had failed to raise the issue in a motion to dismiss 

prior to trial). 

[5] In 2004 and again in 2006, Manley filed, with this Court, petitions seeking 

permission to file a successive post-conviction petition, and our Court denied 

both of his requests. In 2007, he appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion 

to modify his sentence, and we affirmed the trial court’s judgment. See Manley 

v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. 

[6] A few years later, in 2014, Manley appealed from the denial of a motion for 

relief from judgment that he had filed in the Monroe Circuit Court. After 

noting that Manley had already litigated a petition for post-conviction relief, 

that he had failed to follow the procedure set forth in Indiana Post-Conviction 

Rule 1(12), and that his motion equated to an unauthorized successive petition 

for post-conviction relief, we dismissed his appeal. See Manley v. State, No. 

53A01-1407-CR-317 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015), trans. denied, cert. dismissed. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1608-MI-1865 | March 10, 2017 Page 4 of 9

[7] Subsequently, in December 2015, Manley filed, with this Court, a petition 

seeking permission to file a successive post-conviction petition. Our Court 

denied his request in February 2016. 

[8] Thereafter, on April 11, 2016, Manley filed a pro se petition for writ of state 

habeas corpus in Henry Circuit Court, which is the county where he is 

incarcerated. In his petition, he argued, in part, that the child molesting statute 

was unconstitutional, that he did not have a fair and impartial judge or 

appellate tribunal, and that he was “erroneously sentenced[.]” (App. 9). In his 

memorandum attached to his habeas petition, Manley acknowledged that he 

had already had a post-conviction proceeding. Additionally, shortly after he 

filed his habeas petition, Manley sent a letter to the Henry Circuit Court. In his 

letter, Manley stated that the Henry Circuit Court could not transfer his motion 

to the Monroe Circuit Court under Post-Conviction Rule 1 because the Court of 

Appeals had already declined to authorize him to file a successive petition for 

post-conviction relief in February 2016.

[9] On May 20, 2016, the Henry Circuit Court directed the trial clerk to forward a 

copy of Manley’s petition to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office (“the 

Attorney General”) and instructed the Attorney General to file a response 

within thirty days. 

[10] When the Attorney General filed its response, it requested that the Henry 

Circuit Court dismiss Manley’s petition, arguing that it was an unauthorized

collateral attack on his convictions and sentence. The Attorney General
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1608-MI-1865 | March 10, 2017 Page 5 of 9

acknowledged that, under Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c), Manley’s habeas 

petition challenging his convictions and sentence should be transferred to the 

conviction court and treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. The 

Attorney General also acknowledged that, upon such a transfer, the conviction 

court could dismiss Manley’s petition because he did not have permission to file 

a successive post-conviction petition pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 1(12). 

Nevertheless, the Attorney General argued that—given Manley’s prior postconviction petition and the repeated lack of authorization from the Court of 

Appeals to file a successive post-conviction petition—the Henry Circuit Court 

should dismiss Manley’s petition because it was an unauthorized successive 

petition for post-conviction relief. In other words, the Attorney General argued 

that the Henry Circuit Court should disregard Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) 

because “[t]ransferring the case would merely waste resources.” (App. 32). 

[11] On June 20, 2016, the Henry Circuit Court entered an order dismissing 

Manley’s petition, concluding that the petition equated to an unauthorized 

successive petition for post-conviction relief.2 Manley then filed a motion to 

correct error, which the Henry Circuit Court denied. Manley now appeals.

 

2 As a secondary reason for dismissal, the Henry Circuit Court stated that the case was dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction because it “lacked the jurisdiction to review the judgment of another trial court[.]” (App. 5). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1608-MI-1865 | March 10, 2017 Page 6 of 9

Decision

[12] Manley contends that the Henry Circuit Court erred by dismissing his petition 

for writ of state habeas corpus. Specifically, he contends that his petition was 

not an unauthorized successive petition for post-conviction relief. 

Alternatively, he asserts that, even if it were an unauthorized successive 

petition, the Henry Circuit Court should have transferred it to his court of

conviction, the Monroe Circuit Court. 

[13] INDIANA CODE § 34-25.5-1-1 provides that “[e]very person whose liberty is 

restrained, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus 

to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and shall be delivered from the 

restraint if the restraint is illegal.” “The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is 

to bring the person in custody before the court for inquiry into the cause of 

restraint.” Partlow v. Superintendent, Miami Correctional Facility, 756 N.E.2d 978, 

980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Paul v. 

State, 888 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. “One is entitled to 

habeas corpus only if he is entitled to his immediate release from unlawful 

custody.” Id. (quoting Hawkins v. Jenkins, 268 Ind. 137, 139, 374 N.E.2d 496, 

498 (1978)). “[A] petitioner may not file a writ of habeas corpus to attack his 

conviction or sentence.” Id. We review the trial court’s habeas decision for an 

abuse of discretion. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740, 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). 

[14] Here, it is apparent from Manley’s habeas petition, that he is challenging the 

validity of his convictions and sentence. However, “a petitioner may not file a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1608-MI-1865 | March 10, 2017 Page 7 of 9

writ of habeas corpus to attack his conviction or sentence.” Partlow, 756 

N.E.2d at 980. Instead, a petitioner attacking the validity of his conviction or 

sentence must file a petition for post-conviction relief in the court of conviction 

and not in the court of incarceration. Id. 

[15] However, where, as here, a petitioner files a habeas corpus petition challenging 

the validity of his conviction or sentence in the county of incarceration, Indiana

Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) provides that such habeas corpus petition is to be 

transferred to the court of conviction and then treated as a petition for postconviction relief. Specifically, Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) provides as 

follows: 

This Rule does not suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but if a 

person applies for a writ of habeas corpus in the county where 

the person is incarcerated and challenges the validity of his 

conviction or sentence, that court shall transfer the cause to the 

court in which the conviction took place, and the latter court 

shall treat it as a petition for relief under this Rule.

(Emphasis added).

[16] Thus, pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c), the Henry Circuit Court was 

required to transfer Manley’s petition to the conviction court, the Monroe 

Circuit Court. See, e.g., Miller v. Lowrance, 629 N.E.2d 846, 847 (Ind. 1994) 

(explaining that a petitioner’s habeas corpus petition challenging the validity of 

his conviction and sentence fell within the parameters of Post-Conviction Rule 

1(1)(c), which required the trial court to transfer the petition to court where he 

was convicted and sentenced), reh’g denied; Martin v. State, 901 N.E.2d 645, 647 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1608-MI-1865 | March 10, 2017 Page 8 of 9

(Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition that 

challenged his convictions and sentence was required to be transferred to the 

court where he was convicted and sentenced). See also Lash v. Wright, 287 

N.E.2d 255, 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972) (explaining that transfer of a habeas 

petition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) was “mandatory” and was to be 

done “without delay”).

[17] The State acknowledges that Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) “requires a 

mislabeled habeas petition to be transferred to the court of conviction[.]” 

(State’s Br. 17). Nevertheless, the State contends that there is, in essence, an 

exception to Rule 1(1)(c) and that “transfer is required only when the petition is 

properly ‘a petition for relief under’ Post-Conviction Rule 1.” (State’s Br. 17). 

It asserts that Manley’s petition—which was an unauthorized successive 

petition for post-conviction relief—was “by definition not ‘a petition for relief 

under’ Post-Conviction Rule 1” and, as a result, the Henry Circuit Court was 

not required to transfer the petition to the conviction court. (State’s Br. 17). 

[18] It seems that the State is putting the cart before the horse. The plain language 

of Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) rule provides that a trial court, upon receiving a 

habeas petition challenging a conviction or sentence, “shall transfer the cause to 

the court in which the conviction took place[.]” P-C.R. 1(1)(c). Thereafter, 

when the conviction court receives the petition, that court “shall treat it as a 

petition for relief under [Post-Conviction Rule 1].” Id. Thus, it is up to the 

conviction court—not the habeas court—to apply Post-Conviction Rule 1(12) to 

the petition and make a determination of its applicability. See Martin, 901 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A05-1608-MI-1865 | March 10, 2017 Page 9 of 9

N.E.2d at 647 n.2 (noting that, where the petitioner’s habeas petition indicated 

that he had already filed a post-conviction petition, “the court where [the 

petitioner] was convicted and sentenced may ultimately determine that Ind. 

Post-Conviction Rule 1(12), which governs successive petitions for postconviction relief, is applicable”). Accordingly, we reverse the Henry Circuit 

Court and remand with instructions to transfer Manley’s petition to the Monroe 

Circuit Court. 

[19] Reversed and remanded.

3

Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur. 

 

3 We decline to review Manley’s arguments regarding the merits of his petition. We also decline the State’s 

request to impose a $250 sanction and to impose filing restrictions.