MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] Kente Barker appeals the trial courts grant of summary disposition for the State on Barkers petition for postconviction relief. The parties raise several issues on appeal, and we find one dispositive: whether Barkers petition for postconviction relief is barred by collateral estoppel.
1
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Barker was sentenced to a term of thirty-eight years in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) for Class A felony dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug.
2
Barker was paroled on September 2, 2019. One of the conditions of Barkers parole required that he not engage in any criminal conduct. Another condition required that he participate in the Marion County re-entry court.
[3] Shortly thereafter, the DOCs investigations and intelligence division received information Barker was involved in trafficking synthetic narcotics into Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Parole agents searched Barkers residence on October 11, 2019, and found precursors associated with lacing paper with synthetic narcotics. The Indiana Parole Board found Barker violated the conditions of his parole and revoked his parole in February 2020.
[4] On March 13, 2020, Barker filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus in Sullivan Superior Court under cause number 77D01-2003-MI-000153 (“Cause 0153”).
3
In the petition, Barker asserted several alleged due process violations, including that he should have received a hearing in front of the re-entry court, that his parole revocation hearing was conducted improperly, and that the parole boards decision lacked a factual basis. On April 13, 2020, the State filed its response in opposition to Barkers petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the trial court issued an order denying Barkers petition on April 14, 2020. On March 31, 2021, we issued an order dismissing with prejudice Barkers appeal of the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus because Barker failed to timely file a notice of appeal.
[5] Barker then filed his petition for postconviction relief in the instant case in September 2021. Like Barkers petition for writ of habeas corpus, his petition for postconviction relief also challenged the revocation of his parole in February 2020. Barkers new petition argued the parole board lacked jurisdiction over him, he was unlawfully removed from the re-entry court, an attorney should have been appointed to represent him at the parole revocation hearing, and other assorted due process violations. On November 29, 2021, the State filed a motion to dismiss Barkers petition for postconviction relief because it constituted an unauthorized successive petition for postconviction relief.
4
The State characterized Barkers petition for writ of habeas corpus as a previous petition for postconviction relief, and the State asserted:
6. Additionally, the issues raised in the instant post-conviction relief petition are substantially similar to the issues raised in the previous post-conviction relief petition as they both challenge his parole revocation and the hearings held in late 2019 and early 2020.
7. There is no need to revisit the same issues when this Court previously denied Petitioners post-conviction relief petition on April 14, 2020.
(States Motion to Dismiss at 2.) On December 8, 2021, the trial court issued an order denying the States motion. The trial court explained that it “never made a specific finding or formally stated in any order that Petitioners Writ of Habeas Corpus was being treated as [a] Petition for Post-Conviction Relief,” and therefore, it believed it would be error to treat Barkers pending petition for postconviction relief as an unauthorized, successive petition for postconviction relief. (Order on States Motion to Dismiss at 1.)
[6] On December 20, 2021, the State filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) asking the trial court to deny Barkers petition. The State contended Barkers due process rights were not violated during the parole revocation proceedings and sufficient evidence supported the parole revocation. Barker then filed a cross-motion for summary disposition. On January 18, 2022, the trial court issued an order granting the States motion for summary disposition, denying Barkers cross-motion for summary disposition, and denying Barkers petition. Barker subsequently filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied on January 31, 2022.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Initially we note that, like he did before the trial court, Barker proceeds on appeal pro se. We hold pro se litigants to the same standard as trained attorneys and afford them no inherent leniency because of their self-represented status. Zavodinik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014). Pro se litigants “are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), rehg denied. “One of the risks that a [litigant] takes when he decides to proceed pro se is that he will not know how to accomplish all of the things that an attorney would know how to accomplish.” Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied, cert. denied, 558 U.S. 1074 (2009).
[8] “We review the grant of a motion for summary disposition in [postconviction relief] proceedings on appeal in the same way as a motion for summary judgment in a civil matter.” Brown v. State, 131 N.E.3d 740, 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied, cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2783 (2020). Therefore, like with summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review. Id. “Summary disposition should be granted only if ‘there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Komyatti v. State, 931 N.E.2d 411, 415-16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Ind. P-C. R. 1(4)(g)).
[9] The State asks us to affirm the trial court because Barkers petition for postconviction relief is barred by collateral estoppel. The doctrine of res judicata is meant to preclude litigation of matters that have already been litigated, and one component of this doctrine is issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel. Freels v. Koches, 94 N.E.3d 339, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). As we explained in Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos:
Issue preclusion bars the subsequent litigation of a fact or issue that was necessarily adjudicated in a former lawsuit if the same fact or issue is presented in the subsequent lawsuit․ In determining whether issue preclusion is applicable, a court must engage in a two-part analysis: (1) whether the party in the prior action had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue and (2) whether it is otherwise unfair to apply issue preclusion given the facts of the particular case. The non-exhaustive factors to be considered by the trial court in deciding whether to apply issue preclusion include: (1) privity, (2) the defendants incentive to litigate the prior action, and (3) the ability of the plaintiff to have joined the prior action.
2 N.E.3d 688, 696 (internal citation omitted), trans. denied.
[10] As the State notes, “Barker only gets one bite of the apple. The denial of his earlier petition and the dismissal of the appeal with prejudice by this Court bar this attempt to relitigate the validity of the revocation of parole.” (Appellees Br. at 13.) Barker and the State litigated both Cause 0153 and the instant case. Therefore, the identity of the parties is the same. In addition, Barker argued in both Cause 0153 and the instant petition for postconviction relief that his due process rights were violated in connection with the February 2020 revocation of his parole. Thus, the identity of the issues between the two suits is the same. Moreover, in both the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the petition for postconviction relief, Barker asked to have the decision revoking his parole vacated. Therefore, we hold collateral estoppel bars Barker from pursuing the instant petition for postconviction relief, and we affirm the trial court. See Freels, 94 N.E.3d at 344-45 (holding homeowners complaint against builder was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel because she had previously sued the builder for alleged defects related to the same project).
Conclusion
[11] Barker is collaterally estopped from pursuing the instant petition for postconviction relief because his petition is simply an attempt to relitigate the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.
[12] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. On August 22, 2022, Barker filed a motion for leave to amend his brief. As explained further below, Barker is collaterally estopped from challenging his February 2020 parole revocation, and that doctrine also forecloses the arguments raised in Barkers proposed amended brief. Therefore, contemporaneous with this opinion, we issue an order denying Barkers motion to amend his brief.
2
. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 (1996).
3
. The State asks us to take judicial notice of several court filings, including filings in connection with Barkers petition for writ of habeas corpus in Cause 0153 and the States motion to dismiss Barkers petition for postconviction relief before the trial court in the instant case. We possess the authority to judicially notice such documents and do so here. See Ind. Evid. R. 201(b) (“A court may judicially notice a law, which includes ․ records of a court of this state[.]”); see also In re D.K., 968 N.E.2d 792, 795-96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (taking judicial notice of records in underlying child in need of services proceedings).
4
. Generally, a person convicted of a crime can seek collateral review through a postconviction proceeding only once. Burkett v. State, 195 N.E.3d 394, 397 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), rehg denied. However, a convicted person may pursue a successive petition for postconviction relief if the person first receives permission from this Court or the Indiana Supreme Court to do so. Ind. P-C.R. 1(12).
May, Judge.
Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.