MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 04 2015, 9:09 am
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
Gregory A. Caudle Gregory F. Zoeller
Carlisle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Kyle Hunter
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gregory A. Caudle, November 4, 2015
Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No.
77A01-1505-MI-370
v. Appeal from the Sullivan Circuit
Court
Dick Brown, in his capacity as The Honorable Robert Hunley, II,
Superintendent of the Wabash Judge
Valley Correctional Facility, The Honorable Robert E. Springer,
Magistrate
Appellee.
Trial Court Cause No.
77C01-1504-MI-247
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 77A01-1505-MI-370 |November 4, 2015 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Appellant-Petitioner Gregory A. Caudle appeals following the denial of his
petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this petition, Caudle alleged that he was
being restrained unlawfully and was entitled to immediate release from
confinement.
[2] On appeal, Caudle contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition
rather than transferring the petition to the court which imposed Caudle’s
conviction and sentence. Concluding that the trial court did not err in
considering and ruling upon Caudle’s petition, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On or about August 2, 2013, in the Marion County Superior Court, Caudle was
convicted of Class B felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement. He was also found to be a habitual offender. In light of his
convictions and the habitual offender finding, Caudle was sentenced to an
aggregate term of thirty-eight years.
[4] On April 14, 2015, Caudle filed a “Verified Petition for State Writ of Habeas
Corpus” in the Sullivan Circuit Court, i.e., the circuit court in the county in
which he is incarcerated. Appellant’s App. p. 7. In this petition, Caudle alleges
that the charging information was not lawfully filed and argues that, as a result,
he is being held “illegally and cruel and unusually and must be discharged
immediately!” Appellant’s App. p. 9. The Sullivan County trial court denied
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 77A01-1505-MI-370 |November 4, 2015 Page 2 of 4
Caudle’s petition. Caudle subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which was
also denied by the Sullivan County trial court. This appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
[5] The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by denying Caudle’s petition
for writ of habeas corpus rather than transferring said petition to the Marion
County Superior Court.
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.” “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.” Partlow v. Superintendent, Miami Corr.
Facility, 756 N.E.2d 978, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), superseded by
statute on other grounds as stated in Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818,
826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. “One is entitled to habeas
corpus only if he is entitled to his immediate release from
unlawful custody.” Id. “[A] petitioner may not file a writ of
habeas corpus to attack his conviction or sentence.” Id.
Love v. State, 22 N.E.3d 663, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
[6] While the proper venue for a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the county
where the petitioner is being held, “State courts in the counties in which our
prisons are located have no jurisdiction to examine or review a final judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction regular upon its face. Miller v. Lowrance, 629
N.E.2d 846, 847 (Ind. 1994) (citing State v. Dossett, 174 Ind. App. 501, 368
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 77A01-1505-MI-370 |November 4, 2015 Page 3 of 4
N.E.2d 259 (1977)). Thus, where a petitioner applies for a writ of habeas
corpus in the county where he is incarcerated which challenges the validity of
his conviction or sentence, “that court shall transfer the cause to the court in
which the conviction took place, and the latter court shall treat it as a petition
for relief under this Rule.” Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c).
[7] Again, on April 14, 2015, Caudle, pro se, filed a document entitled “Verified
Petition for State Writ of Habeas Corpus” in the Sullivan County Circuit Court.
Appellant’s App. p. 7. In this petition, Caudle alleges that the charging
information was not lawfully filed and argues that, as a result, he is being held
“illegally and cruel and unusually and must be discharged immediately!”
Appellant’s App. p. 9. Upon review, we read Caudle’s petition as an assertion
that he is entitled to immediate release because he is allegedly being restrained
unlawfully. This is exactly the type of claim properly presented in a petition
requesting a writ of habeas corpus. Further, we do not interpret any of the
statements made in Caudle’s petition as constituting an attack on his conviction
or sentence. As such, the Sullivan Circuit Court properly considered and ruled
on Caudle’s petition.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 77A01-1505-MI-370 |November 4, 2015 Page 4 of 4