EDDIE G. LOVE, Appellant-Defendant,
STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff
APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART CIRCUIT COURT. The Honorable Terry C. Shewmaker, Judge. Cause No. 20C01-0602-FB-12.
EDDIE G. LOVE, APPELLANT, Pro se, Michigan City, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana; J.T. WHITEHEAD, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
DARDEN, Senior Judge. MAY, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
DARDEN, Senior Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eddie G. Love appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Concluding that the trial court did not err by denying Love's request, a claim which is barred by res judicata, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This appeal represents Love's most recent attempt to collaterally attack his conviction after a jury trial for two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in
a memorandum decision. See Love v. State, 875 N.E.2d 830 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007), trans. denied. Likewise, the post-conviction court's denial of Love's petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to challenge his allegedly illegal arrest, was affirmed on direct appeal. See Love v. State,
Cause No. 20A03-1002-PC-76 (Ind.Ct.App. Jan. 18, 2011), trans. denied.
While Love's petition for post-conviction relief was pending with the trial court, Love filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county of his incarceration. That petition was transferred, pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Relief Rule 1, § 1(c), to the county in which Love's conviction took place. The petition was denied, however, while Love's petition for post-conviction for relief was pending. Love filed three requests to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief, each of which this Court declined to authorize. See Cause Nos. 20A04-1212-SP-637; 20A03-1309-SP-381; and 20A04-1312-SP-639. Love's pro se verified petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition, which he filed with the Indiana Supreme Court, was dismissed.
On March 25, 2013, Love filed a pro se motion for relief from judgment or order asking the trial court to vacate his conviction. The trial court denied Love's motion as well as the subsequent motion to correct error Love filed pro se. In yet another attempt to challenge the legality of his arrest, despite the adverse decisions and the attendant denials on transfer, Love, pro se, filed another petition for state writ of habeas corpus in the county of his incarceration. That petition was transferred to the county where Love's conviction took place. Love's claim was rejected again, on res ...