Anthony Warren v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 30, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1703-CR-598
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 30 2017, 9:13 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Anthony Warren Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Carlisle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

James B. Martin Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anthony Warren, October 30, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1703-CR-598 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa Borges, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 49G04-9808-CF-128010

Barnes, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-598 | October 30, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Anthony Warren appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief from

judgment and motion to correct error. We affirm.

Issue [2] Warren raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the

trial court properly denied Warren’s motion for relief from judgment and

motion to correct error.

Facts [3] In 1998, the State charged Warren with murder and alleged that he was an

habitual offender. A jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court

sentenced him to sixty-five years enhanced by an additional thirty years for his

status as an habitual offender for an aggregate sentence of ninety-five years. On

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

again sentenced him to ninety-five years. Warren appealed this judgment, and

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

[4] Warren filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction

court denied. We affirmed on appeal. Warren v. State, 49A04-0405-PC-283

(Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2005). Warren later filed a petition for a state writ of

habeas corpus, which the trial court dismissed. This court dismissed Warren’s

appeal. See Docket of Cause No. 49A02-1001-PC-53. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-598 | October 30, 2017 Page 2 of 4 [5] In January 2017, Warren filed a pro se Motion for Relief from Void Judgment

pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). In the motion, Warren argued that he

was being held on a “Void Judgment of Conviction, Sentence and Commitment

Order . . . because the judgment entered by the Magistrate Mark F. Renner []

was never appointed as a Special Judge in the case and therefore he lacked the

authority to render a judgment and sign it as Judge . . . .” Appellant’s App.

Vol. II p. 24. The trial court denied the motion. Warren then filed a motion to

correct error, which the trial court also denied. Warren now appeals.

Analysis [6] Warren argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for relief from

judgment, by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his motion, and by

denying his motion to correct error. According to Warren, his judgment of

conviction was signed by a magistrate, who had no jurisdiction or authority to

render judgment of conviction. Warren contends that his judgment of

conviction is void and the trial court should have granted his motion for relief

from judgment and his motion to correct error.

[7] In Van Meter v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1138, 1138 (Ind. 1995), our supreme court

held that Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) cannot be used to challenge the validity of a

criminal conviction. The court noted that criminal defendants may not

circumvent the rules governing post-conviction relief proceedings “by seeking

remedies under the civil law.” Van Meter, 650 N.E.2d at 1138. The court held

that the defendant was required to raise the challenge to his convictions through

post-conviction procedures. Id. at 1139. Similarly, here, Warren was required Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-598 | October 30, 2017 Page 3 of 4 to raise his argument regarding the validity of his conviction through post-

conviction relief proceedings. Because Warren has already filed a petition for

post-conviction relief, he would have been required to raise the issue through

successive post-conviction relief proceedings. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule

1(12). We conclude that the trial court properly denied Warren’s motion for

relief from judgment and motion to correct error.

Conclusion [8] The trial court properly denied Warren’s motion for relief from judgment and

motion to correct error. We affirm.

May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-598 | October 30, 2017 Page 4 of 4