Robb, J.
Todd Alan Currie, Jr., pro se, appeals the dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief, raising one issue for our review: whether the post-conviction court erred in treating his petition as a successive petition for post-conviction relief and therefore erred in dismissing his petition with prejudice. …
On November 2, 2006, Currie entered a plea of guilty to two counts of Class B felony child molesting in Adams Circuit Court. On January 22, 2007, Currie was sentenced to twenty years on each count, to be served concurrently, with ten years of each sentence suspended.
In 2010, Currie filed in Adams Circuit Court a pro se petition seeking postconviction relief (“2010 PCR”). The 2010 PCR was later withdrawn at Currie’s request without prejudice. Currie alleges he was released from the Indiana Department of Correction in June 2012 and placed on probation and parole. He began his probation in Adams County, but his probation was transferred to another county in January 2014. In November 2014, the Adams County probation department filed a notice of probation violation. The Adams Circuit Court revoked Currie’s probation and ordered him to serve the ten years previously suspended from his sentence.
In January 2016, Currie filed in Adams Circuit Court a pro se motion for relief from judgment/petition for post-conviction relief (“2016 PCR”). …
On April 28, 2016, Currie filed in Henry Circuit Court a pro se complaint for writ of habeas corpus alleging his incarceration was illegal because neither his plea agreement nor the trial court at his sentencing hearing referred to a period of mandatory parole. … The Henry Circuit Court transferred the complaint to Adams Circuit Court to be re-filed as a petition for post-conviction relief. The Adams Circuit Court docketed the case on April 29, 2016, under a new cause number (“Current PCR”). On the same day, the post-conviction court issued the following order in the Current PCR:
[Currie] has previously filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief [in 2010 and 2016].
Pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(12), [Currie] must seek permission to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief by filing a Successive Post-Conviction Rule 1 Petition Form and the proposed successive petition for post-conviction relief with the Clerk of the Court for the Indiana Court of Appeals, which [Currie] has not done.
….
The Court now dismisses this cause with prejudice.
Currie acknowledges the Henry Circuit Court correctly transferred his Current PCR to Adams Circuit Court … He argues, however, that upon accepting the transfer, the post-conviction court erred in applying Post Conviction Rule 1(12) to the Current PCR and dismissing it on the basis that it is an unauthorized successive petition. …
If a petitioner has never sought post-conviction relief in the past, he or she must follow the procedures outlined in Post-Conviction Rule 1(1). If the petitioner has sought post-conviction relief before, however, he or she must follow the procedure found in Post-Conviction Rule 1(12) for successive petitions. …
A post-conviction petition is not a second or successive petition requiring leave of court unless and until a first petition has been litigated to conclusion. See Williams v. State, 808 N.E.2d 652, 659 (Ind. 2004) …
… Currie’s 2010 PCR was withdrawn without prejudice and never decided on the merits; therefore, it is not a “completed” post-conviction proceeding that would render the Current PCR a successive petition. … The post-conviction court therefore erred to the extent it relied on the 2010 PCR as a reason to dismiss the Current PCR.
As for the 2016 PCR, Currie asserts it was still pending when the postconviction court entered its order dismissing the Current PCR for failure to follow Rule 1(12). … As resolution of one post-conviction relief proceeding is what makes a second petition “successive,” and as it appears plausible that Currie’s 2016 PCR had not been resolved on the merits prior to April 28, 2016, the date on which he filed the Current PCR, we conclude the post-conviction court erred in considering the Current PCR to be a successive petition requiring authorization to file and therefore erred in dismissing the Current PCR for that reason.
We do agree with the State that Currie is required to raise all known claims challenging his conviction and sentence in a single petition, however. …Currie should be given the opportunity to amend his pending petition to pursue all his post-conviction claims in one proceeding. Therefore, we must reverse the dismissal with prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.