Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-3055 | July 20, 2020 Page 1 of 7

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

Anthony Warren

Carlisle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anthony Warren,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 20, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-MI-3055

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Lisa Borges, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G04-9808-CF-128010

Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-3055 | July 20, 2020 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Anthony Warren appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of 

habeas corpus and his motion to correct error. We affirm.

Issue

[2] Warren raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial 

court properly denied Warren’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and his 

motion to correct error.

Facts

[3] In 1998, Warren was convicted of murder and found to be an habitual offender. 

The trial court sentenced Warren to sixty-five years for murder, enhanced by an 

additional thirty years for the habitual offender adjudication. On direct appeal, 

our Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction but vacated the habitual 

offender adjudication. Warren v. State, 725 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. 2000). On 

remand, Warren was again found to be an habitual offender, and the trial court 

again sentenced him to ninety-five years. Warren appealed his conviction, and 

our Supreme Court affirmed. Warren v. State, 769 N.E.2d 170 (Ind. 2002). 

[4] In September 2000, Warren filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief

(“PCR”), which the post-conviction court denied in December 2003. This 

Court affirmed the post-conviction court’s denial of the post-conviction 

petition. Warren v. State, No. 49A04-0405-PC-283 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 

2005), reh’g denied, trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-3055 | July 20, 2020 Page 3 of 7

[5] In August 2009, Warren filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the 

trial court dismissed with prejudice. This Court dismissed the appeal of the 

denial of writ. 

[6] In January 2017, Warren filed a pro se motion for relief from void judgment 

pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B), which the trial court denied. Warren also 

filed a motion to correct error in February 2017, following the trial court’s 

denial of the motion for relief from void judgment. The trial court also denied 

this motion. Warren contended that his judgment of conviction was “void” 

because the magistrate judge did not have the authority to render a judgment. 

On appeal, this Court concluded that the trial court properly denied Warren’s 

motion for relief from judgment and his motion to correct error because Warren 

was required to raise the issue through a successive petition for PCR. Warren v. 

State, No. 49A02-1703-CR-598, slip op. at 4 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2017), trans.

denied. 

[7] In March 2018, Warren filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence and a 

motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. On appeal, this Court 

affirmed and held that: (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

the motion to correct erroneous sentence or the motion to correct error; (2) 

Warren again argued that the magistrate did not have authority to sign the 

original abstract of judgment; and (3) the appropriate procedural course was for 

Warren to file a successive petition for PCR. See Warren v. State, No. 18A-CR01070, slip op. at 7 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2019).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-3055 | July 20, 2020 Page 4 of 7

[8] In March 2019, Warren requested permission to file a successive petition for 

PCR, which challenged the validity of his conviction on the ground that the 

abstract of judgment was not signed by a judicial officer. This Court denied 

Warren’s request for leave to file a successive petition for PCR.

[9] In October 2019, Warren filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

the Sullivan Superior Court. Warren claimed that the abstract of judgment was 

invalid because it lacked a proper judicial signature. The Sullivan Superior

Court ruled the motion was an attack on the validity of the trial court’s abstract 

of judgment and transferred the writ to the court of original jurisdiction, Marion

Superior Court (“the trial court”). The trial court then denied Warren’s petition

for writ of habeas corpus. Warren filed a motion to correct error, which the 

trial court also denied. Warren now appeals both the denial of his petition for 

writ of habeas corpus and his motion to correct error.

Analysis

[10] Warren argues the trial court erred when it denied his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus and his motion to correct error. We review a ruling on a motion to 

correct error for an abuse of discretion. Paragon Family Rest. v. Bartolini, 799 

N.E.2d 1048, 1055 (Ind. 2003). Additionally, we must also consider whether 

the trial court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus. We also review a

trial court’s ruling on a habeas corpus petition for an abuse of discretion. 

Randolph v. Buss, 956 N.E.2d 38, 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. We do 

not reweigh the evidence, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to 

the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. Any 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-3055 | July 20, 2020 Page 5 of 7

conclusions regarding the meaning or construction of law are reviewed de 

novo. Id.

[11] To determine whether the motion to correct error was properly denied, we first 

consider whether it was error for the trial court to deny Warren’s petition for 

habeas corpus. Indiana Code Section 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.” Thus, the purpose of a writ of 

habeas corpus is to determine the lawfulness of a petitioner’s detention. 

Randolph, 956 N.E.2d at 40; see Partlow v. Superintendent, Miami Correctional 

Facility, 756 N.E.2d 978, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (“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.”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Paul v. 

State, 888 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The trial court must provide a writ 

of habeas corpus if the petitioner is unlawfully incarcerated and entitled to 

immediate release. Id.

[12] Warren argues that he is being “illegally detained by unlawful process” because 

the “Abstract of Judgment sent to the Department of Correction is lacking a 

judicial signature . . . .” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. Warren’s argument regarding the 

petition for habeas corpus fails for two reasons: (1) his petition for writ of 

habeas corpus is an unauthorized attempt to litigate a successive petition for

PCR; and (2) the successive challenge is barred by res judicata.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-3055 | July 20, 2020 Page 6 of 7

[13] “[A] petitioner must file a petition for PCR in the court of conviction (rather 

than a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court in the county of 

incarceration) when he attacks the validity of his conviction or sentence and/or 

does not allege that he is entitled to immediate discharge.” Partlow, 756 N.E.2d 

at 980 (citing Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1). Stated differently, “[a] petitioner 

may not file a writ of habeas corpus to attack his conviction or sentence.” 

Martin v. State, 901 N.E.2d 645, 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Here, Warren

challenges his conviction in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which is 

improper. See id. Warren’s challenge should have been presented by way of a 

petition for PCR. See id.

[14] Because Warren previously litigated one petition for PCR unsuccessfully,

Warren was required to seek leave of this Court to pursue a successive petition 

for PCR. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(12). Warren, however, failed to

obtain permission to file a successive post-conviction petition. Accordingly, the 

trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the 

motion to correct error.

[15] Additionally, Warren’s arguments fail because he is barred from successive 

litigation by the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata “prevents the repetitious 

litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute.” State v. Holmes, 728 

N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000). Thus, “[a] petitioner for post-conviction relief 

cannot escape the effect of claim preclusion merely by using different language 

to phrase an issue and define an alleged error.” Lee v. State, 91 N.E.3d 978, 

992 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (citation omitted). Warren has repeatedly and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-3055 | July 20, 2020 Page 7 of 7

unsuccessfully raised this same issue. His prior attempt to raise this issue in a 

successive petition for PCR was denied by this Court. Warren cannot escape

the application of res judicata by merely renaming his petition.

[16] Through the writ of habeas corpus and motion to correct error, Warren 

attempted to circumvent the rules governing successive PCR proceedings. This

unauthorized attempt to litigate a successive petition for PCR was correctly 

denied by the trial court. 

Conclusion

[17] The trial court properly denied Warren’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and 

motion to correct error. We affirm.

[18] Affirmed. 

Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur.