Purs uant 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 : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : RONALD ANDREW MANLEY GREGORY F. ZOELLER New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana ELLEN H. MEILAENDER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RONA LD A. MANLEY, ) ) Appellant

- Defendant , ) ) vs. ) No. 29A05

- 1306

- CR

- 306 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Petitioner
. )

APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Paul A. Felix, Judge Cause No. 29C01

- 9506

- CF

- 106 April 29 , 2014 MEMORANDUM DEC ISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge2

Ronald Manley appeals the d enial of his pro se Motion for Modification of Sentence. Manley asserts that the trial court failed to consider his argument under Ind
. Code § 35

- 38

- 1

- 23
. 1 We dismiss. FACTS AND PROCE DURAL HISTORY In 1997, Manley was convicted of three counts of C lass B felony child molestation , 2 one count of C lass B felony attempted child molestation , 3 one count of C lass C felony child molestation , 4 and one count of C lass A misdemeanor impersonation of a public servant. 5 Manley pursued a direct appeal, and we affirme d his conviction and sentence. Manley v. State , No. 29A05

- 9807

- CR

- 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Manley filed a petition for post

conviction review , and a post

- conviction court denied his pe tition in December of 2009. We affirmed the denial of post

- conviction relief. Manley v. State , No. 29A04

- 1002

- PC

- 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). On May 15, 2013, Manley asked the court to award him credit time for various programs that he claimed he completed , but for which he all e ged the Department of Correction gave him no credit . The trial court denied the motion
. DISCUSSION AND DECISION We note Manley proceeds pro se , but even pro se litigants without legal training are required to follow procedural rules
. Wright v. State , 772 N.E.2d 449, 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). P ost
- conviction proceedings are the appropriate procedure for presenting claims for

1 This statute is the version of 35

- 50

- 6

- 3.3, dealing with credit time for completion of educational degrees, in effect when Manley committed his offenses
. 2 Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 4

- 3(a). 3 Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 4

- 3(c). 4 Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 4

- 3(b). 5 Ind. Code § 35

- 44.1

- 2

- 6.3

educational credit time. Young v. State , 888 N.E.2d 1255, 1256 (Ind. 2008). If the petition is not the firs t the petitioner has filed for post

- conviction relief, the petitioner must follow the procedure outlined in Post

- Conviction Rule 1(12) for successive petitions in order to have the filing authorized
. Id. at 1257
. Manley has already litigated one post

- c onviction petition in this case , and he did not receive, or even request, authorization to file a successive petition. Manley argues his motion
was for modification of sentence pursuant to Ind. Code § 35

- 38

- 1

- 17 and it is therefore not a successive post

- c onviction petition. We disagree. Manley asked for educational credit time for programs he claimed he completed but for which the Department of Correction allegedly has never given him credit. P ost
- conviction proceedings are the appropriate vehicle for
r equesting such relief. See Young , 888 N.E.2d at 1256. Because Manley has already litigated one post

- conviction petition in relation to this case , he must follow the procedure outlined in Post

- Conviction Rule 1(12) for successive post

- conviction petitions
. See i d . at 1257. CONCLUSION Manley ’s motion was an unauthorized successive petition for post
- conviction relief. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal
. Dismissed. KIRSCH. J., and BAILEY, J, concur.