James E. Manley v. Keith Butts, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 106

In 1997 Manley was convicted in Monroe County of multiple child-molesting felonies and sentenced to 55 years; direct appeal and initial post-conviction petition were previously litigated and unsuccessful.
Manley filed multiple attempts to pursue successive post-conviction relief; the Court of Appeals repeatedly denied authorization to file successive petitions.
In April 2016 Manley filed a pro se state habeas corpus petition in Henry County (where he is incarcerated) challenging the constitutionality of the statute, judicial impartiality, and his sentence.
The Attorney General moved to dismiss the habeas petition as an unauthorized successive post-conviction petition, acknowledging that Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) calls for transfer to the conviction court but arguing transfer would waste resources because authorization to file a successive petition had been denied.
The Henry Circuit Court dismissed Manley’s habeas petition as an unauthorized successive post-conviction petition and for lack of jurisdiction; Manley appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Manley’s habeas petition as an unauthorized successive post-conviction petition	Manley argued his habeas petition was not an unauthorized successive post-conviction petition; alternatively, if it was, the habeas court should have transferred it to the court of conviction	State argued the habeas petition was effectively an unauthorized successive post-conviction petition and the habeas court should dismiss rather than transfer because transfer would be futile given prior denials of authorization	Reversed: under Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) the habeas court must transfer a habeas petition challenging conviction or sentence to the court of conviction, which then treats it as a post-conviction petition and may apply Rule 1(12) regarding successive petitions

Partlow v. Superintendent, Miami Correctional Facility, 756 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (habeas not proper vehicle to attack conviction or sentence)
Miller v. Lowrance, 629 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. 1994) (Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) requires transfer of mislabeled habeas petition to court of conviction)
Martin v. State, 901 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (habeas petition challenging conviction/sentence must be transferred to conviction court and may be subject to Rule 1(12))
Lash v. Wright, 287 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972) (transfer under the rule is mandatory and must be done without delay)
Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard of review for habeas decision is abuse of discretion)