Lakesha Norington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
FILED
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Dec 10 2019, 10:23 am
precedent or cited before any court except for the
CLERK
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Lakesha Norington Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Carlisle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
George P. Sherman
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lakesha Norington, December 10, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-PC-441
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Hon. Grant W. Hawkins,
Appellee-Petitioner. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
49G05-1710-PC-38106
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-441 | December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] In 2004, Lakesha Norington pled guilty in Marion Superior Court to Class B
felony robbery, Class C felony burglary, and Class A felony involuntary
manslaughter and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of sixty years of
incarceration. We affirmed Norington’s sentence on direct appeal, and she
sought, and was denied, post-conviction relief (“PCR”). Norington claims to
have a filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“the Petition”) on July 6, 2018,
in the post-conviction court. On July 25, Norington moved to have the case
transferred to Sullivan County, the county of her detention. The post-
conviction court denied Norington’s motion and her subsequent motion to
correct error. Norington contends that the post-conviction court abused its
discretion in denying her motion for change of venue. Because we disagree and
also conclude that the post-conviction court should have dismissed the Petition
as an impermissible successive PCR petition, we affirm and remand with
instructions.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 21, 2004, Norington pled guilty to Class B felony robbery, Class C
felony burglary, and Class A felony involuntary manslaughter in two separate
cause numbers. See Norington v. State, No. 49A05-1707-PC-1966, slip op. at 2
(Ind. Ct. App. May 22, 2018), trans. denied. On May 12, 2004, the trial court
sentenced Norington to consecutive sentences of twelve years for robbery, eight
years for burglary, and forty years for involuntary manslaughter. Id. On direct
appeal, we affirmed Norington’s sentence. Id. Norington filed a PCR petition,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-441 | December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 4
which the post-conviction court denied on March 25, 2009. Id. at 2–3.
Norington did not appeal the denial of her PCR petition. Id. at 3.
[3] Norington claims that on July 6, 2018, she filed the Petition in Marion Superior
Court, although the chronological case summary contains no indication that it
was actually submitted to the court, much less filed. Nonetheless, on July 25,
2018, Norington filed a motion for change of venue, in which she argued that
the Petition should be transferred to Sullivan County, the county in which she
is detained. The post-conviction court denied Norington’s motion for change of
venue on July 26, 2018. On August 16, 2018, Norington filed a motion to
correct error, which was denied on September 13, 2018.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Norington appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of her motion to
correct error, the alleged error being the post-conviction court’s denial of her
motion to transfer the Petition from Marion County to Sullivan County, the
county in which she is detained. While it is true that a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in Indiana is to be filed in in county in which the petitioner is
being detained,
if a person applies for a writ of habeas corpus in the county
where the person is incarcerated and 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 [PCR.]
Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c). So, if the Petition (assuming it was actually
filed) was really a PCR petition, it should have been filed in the court of her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-441 | December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 4
conviction, i.e., Marion Superior Court, and the post-conviction court therefore
properly denied Norington’s motion to change venue.
[5] Norington alleges in the Petition that the cause of her illegal restraint is “an
illegal search of home without both probable cause and exigent circumstances
resulting in illegal seizure of Person and Effects[,]” i.e., that her convictions
were based on illegally-obtained evidence. Appellant’s App. Vol. IV p. 12.
This claim is clearly a challenge to the validity of her convictions and therefore
not properly raised in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The post-conviction
court apparently and properly treated the Petition as a successive PCR petition,
which Norington had not sought or received permission to file. It is well-settled
that “[w]hen a trial court encounters an improper successive petition for post-
conviction relief, it should dismiss the petition.” Love v. State, 52 N.E.3d 937,
940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Although the post-conviction court properly denied
Norington’s motion to change venue, it is not entirely clear that it dismissed her
improper PCR petition. We remand with instructions to do so.
[6] The judgement of the post-conviction court is affirmed, and we remand with
instructions.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-441 | December 10, 2019 Page 4 of 4