Anthony Warren v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

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