### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 28, 200 5

M A R TI N E. WALK ER v. HOWA RD CA RLT ON, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County

No. 107855 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2005-00398-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Jul y 5, 2005

The Petitioner, Martin E. W al k er , filed a pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus seeking relief

from an
a ll e g e d ly v o idju d g me n t, w h ic h th e h ab e a s c o rp u s c o u r t d is mi s s e d

. O n ap p e a l, th e Pe ti tioner contends that the ha

beas c orpus court erre d in dismi ssing his petition because: (1) c ount one of the ind ic tme nt c ha

rg ing him wi th mur de r i s d e fe c tiv e be c a us e it di d n ot p ro vid e no tic e of the of fe ns e c ha rg e d; ( 2) the ind ic tme nt is inva lid be c a us e the dis tr ic t atto rn e y faile d to sig n it; and (3 ) the Sta te failed to c omply with the trial court’s order for a bill of particula rs. Finding no err or in the judg ment of the ha beas c orpus court, we af

firm the dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition fo r h ab eas c orpus relief

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R

. and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.
Martin E. Walker, pr o se, Mountain City , Tenne ssee.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; a ndB re nt C . Ch e rry , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. F acts On Aug ust 6, 1984, a Davidson C o u n t y Gr an d J ury char g ed the Petitioner in a two c ount indictment with the first deg ree murder of his fathe r, James T. Walker, and the f irst deg ree murder of his wife, D iane Walker . See State v. Martin E. W alker , No. 85-295-I I I , 1987 WL 17609, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 29, 1987), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. N ov. 30, 1 987). The
case s were sever ed, the Petitioner wa s found g uiltyof the murder of J ames T. Walker, and the trial court sente nced the Petitioner, as a Rang e I standard offe nder, to life imprisonment. I d. On direc t appea l, this C ourt aff

irmed the Petitioner’s c onviction and sentenc e. I d. at *3. On Oc tober 12, 2004,-2-

the Pe tit io ner fi le d a

pe tit ion fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s, in the John so n Co un ty Cr imi na l Co urt, i n wh ic h h e a lle g e d th a t hi s ju dg me nt i s v oidbe c a us e : ( 1) the ind ic tme nt, c ha rg ing him wi th f ir st de g re e mur der of J ame s T. Wal ke r, is d e fe c tiv e be c a us e it d id n ot p ro vid e no tic e of the of fe ns e c ha rg e d; ( 2) the ind ic tme nt is inva lid be c a us e the dis tr ic t atto rn e y faile d to sig n it; and (3 ) the Sta te failed to c omply

with the trial court’s order for a bill of particular s. The habe as cor pus court d i s m i s s ed t h e p et i t i o n s t at i n g: The Petitioner, Martin E. Walker, sentenc ed to life in prison for fir st deg ree murder, reque sts that a writ of habeas corpus issue. Upon consider ation of the pe tition, t he [S ]t ate’ s motion to dismiss and memorandum of law a nd the [P ]etit ioner’s r esponse, the court is of the opinion that the motion t o dismiss i s we l l t aken. Nothing in the pe ti ti on wo uldsu pp ort a

fi nd ing by

thi s c ou rt

that [P]e tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio n is vo id
or that hi s se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d. Th e [P]et iti on e r’ s re qu e st fo r app oin te d c ou ns e l is respe ctfully

denied.

I t is fr om this or de r o f the tr ia l c ou rt that th e De fe nd a nt n ow a pp e a ls.

II. Ana lys is

Article I , section 15 o f t h e T en n essee Constit ution gua rante es its citiz ens the rig ht to seek habea s corpus relief and Tenne ssee Code Annotated sections 29-21-101 e t seq

. c od if y the app lic able proce dures f

or see king a

writ. Howe ver, the g rounds upon which our law provide s relief are very narr ow. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . “Unlike the post-c onviction petition, the purpose of

a habe as cor

pus petition is t o contest void and not mere ly voidable judg ments.” Potts v. Sta te , 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . There fore , in order to state a cognizable c laim for habe as corpus r elief, the petition must contest a void judg ment. I d. “A void judgme nt is one in which the judgme nt is facially

invalid because the c ourt did n o t have the statutory authority to rende r such judgme nt . . . . A voi dable judgment is one which is fac ially valid and requires proof bey ond the fa ce of t he record or judgme nt to demonstrate its voidableness.” Dykes v. Compton , 978 S.W .2d 528, 529 (T e nn . 1 99 8) (c iti ng Ar c he r v. Sta te , 85 1 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 1 (T e nn

. 19 93 ))

. A s e nte nc e imp os e d in direc t contrave ntion of a statute is illeg al and there fore “void or voidable depending upon whether the illeg ality

of t he sentence is evident on the face of the judg ment or the re cord of the under ly ing proce eding s.” McL aney

v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 94 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) ), see also State v. Bur khart, 566 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978).
The pe t i t i o n er b ea rs the burde n of showing by a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e that the conviction is v oid or that the prison term ha s expi red. Passa rella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). The proce dural re quirements for habea s corpus re lief ar e mandatory and
m u s t b e scrupulously

followed. Ar cher

, 8 5 1 S

. W

. 2 d a t 1 6 5

. I t i s p e r m i s s i b l e f o r a tr i a l c o u r t to summarily

dismiss a petition of habea s corpus without the appointment of a la wy er a nd without an evidentiary

hear i n g i f t h ere is nothing on the f ace of the judg ment to indicate that the c onvictions addre s s e d th e r e in ar e v o id

. Se e Pa s s ar e ll a , 8 9 1 S. W. 2 d a t 6 2 7

. B e c a u s e th e d e te r mi n a tion of whether habea s corpus re lief should be g rante d is a question of law, our

revie w is de novo with no-3-

presumption of cor

rec tness. Hart v. State, 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)

. The Petitioner conte nds that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief bec ause t h e judg ment of
c on vic tio n, by

wh ic h h e is i nc arc e rate d, is v oidbe c a us e it i s p redi cat ed on a n in va lidind ic tme nt. I f the Pe tit ion e r i s c or

re c t a nd his ind ic tme nt is de fe c tiv e , a de fe c tiv e ind ic tme nt i s a n a pp ro pria te issue to be broug ht in a habea s corpus pe t i tion. See Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319 (Tenn. 2000)

. Th e Pe tit ion e r f

ir st a sse rt s th a t c ou nt on e of his ind ic tme nt up on wh ic h he wa s c on vic te d is de fe c tiv e be c a us e it f

a ile d to pr ov ide th e P etiti on e r w ith pr op e r n oti c e of the of fe ns e . T he Sta te
c on te nd s th a t th e Pe tit ion e r w a s c le arl y on no tic e of

the of fe ns e he wa s c ha

rg e d w ith ba se d o n th is indictment. At the time of the off ense, f irst deg ree murder w as def ined in pertinent pa

rt as “[e]very murder pe rpetrated by

means of poison, ly ing in wait, o r b y other kind of willful, deliber ate, malicious and pre meditated killing . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-202 (Supp. 1982). An indictment must meet the statutory

require ments of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec ti o n 4 0 -1 3 -102, which pr ov ide s:
Th e ind ic tme nt mus t state the fa c ts c on sti tut ing the of fe ns e in o rd ina

ry a ndc on c ise lang uag e, without prolix ity or repetition, in such a manner as t o enable a per son of
c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o k n o w w h a ti s i n t e n d e d , a n d w i t h t h a t d e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y, which will enable the court, on conviction, to pr onounce the proper judgme nt; and in no case are such words as “force and arms” or “contrary to the form of the statute”
n e c e s s ar y.
Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-13-202 ( Supp. 1982). I n the ca se under submissi on, the Petitioner included
a c op y of c ou nt o ne of

his ind ic tme nt a s a n e xhibi t to his pe tit ion , w hic h r e a ds a s f oll ow s:
The Gr and Jurors f

o r t h e S tate of Te nnessee , duly elec ted, impaneled, sw orn and char g ed to inquire for

the body of the County

of Da vidson, and State afor esaid, upon their oath a fore said, prese nt: That Martin E. Walker of sa id County , here tofore, towit: On the ___ day

of Jul y , 1984, with force and arms, i n t he County afor esaid,
un la wf ull y , f e lon iou sly , will fu lly , de lib e rate ly , p re me dit a te dly a ndma lic iou sly , d id make a n assault upon the bodyof one James T. Walker a nd him the said J ames T. W a l k e r h e t h e s a i d M ar t i n E

. W a l k e r t h e n a n d t h e r e d i d u n l a w f u l l y , f e l o n i o u s l y, willfully , deliberately , preme ditatedly , and of his malice aforethoug ht, kill and murder, a g ainst the pea ce of the State.

After a thoroug h revie w of the i ndictment in this case, under the applica

ble law, we find that it is sufficient. The indictment in this case c losely follows the statutory

form of the crime, a nd the indictment is consistent with t he re quirements of Te nnessee Code Annotated s ec t i o n 40-13-202 (Supp. 1982). We note that our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hi l l , 9 5 4 S.W .2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 1997) supports this conclusion. I n Hill, our Supreme Court held that, for constitutional pu rp os e s, “ a n in dic tme nt is va lid if it pr ov ide s su ff ic ie nt inf orma tio n: (1 ) to e na

ble the a c c us e d to know the ac cusation to which a nswer is re quired; (2) to furnish the court adequate basis for the entry-4-

of a pr oper judg ment; and (3) to pr otect the a cc u s ed fr o m double jeopar dy .” Hill, 954 S.W .2d at 727. I n Hill , the Court stressed that indictments should be scr utiniz ed fr om the vantag e point of

“ c omm on se ns e a nd ri g ht re a so n rathe r tha n f ro m th e na

rr ow sta nd po int

of

. . . te c hn ic a lit y

or ha ir splitt ing f ault finding .” I d. at 728 (quoting United States v. P u rvi s, 580 F.2d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 1978)). Since H ill, the Court has often re peate d its int ention to relax “common law plea ding require ments and its relucta nce to e levate f orm over substanc e whe n evaluating the sufficie ncy of indictments.” See e.g ., State v. Hammonds, 30 S.W .3d 294, 300 (Tenn. 2000). I n Hammonds, the Court said, “I ndeed, H ill and i t s prog eny leave littl e doubt that indictments which ac hieve the
overriding pur

pose of notice to the acc used will be con sidered suf ficient to satisfy

both constituti onal and st atutory require ments.” I d.; see State v. Sledg e, 15 S.W.3d 93, 94 (Tenn. 2000); Crittenden v. State, 978 S.W .2d 929, 931 (Tenn. 1998) ; Ruff v. State, 978 S.W .2d 95, 100 (Tenn. 1998)

. Ac c or din g ly , w e c on c lud e the Pe tit ion e r wa s p ro vid e d a de qu a te no tic e of the c ha rg e s a g a ins t hi m, a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt

ha d a n a de qu ate ba sis fo r the e ntry of a pr op e r j ud g me nt. Th e re fo re , th is i ssu e is wi tho ut m e ri t.

Th e Pe tit ion e r n e xt a sse rt s tha t the ind ic tme nt upo n whi c h he wa s con vic te d is vo id b e c a us e it was not signe d by the di strict attorney

. The State c ontends that this issue is waived bec ause it wa s not raised be fore the trial court and, furthe r, count two of the indictment was sig ned by the prosec utor. Even ha d th e Di s t ri ct Attorney Gene ral failed to sign the indictment, this would not rende r the Petitioner’s judg ment void. Certain def ects in the indictment must be ra ised prior to trial
a ndthe failu re to d o s o w ill re su lt i n w a ive r. Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 12 (f ). I ssu e s “ [i]nc lud e d w ith in this
c la ss ar e de fe c ts in the ind ic tme nt that go to ma tte rs of fo rm rathe r tha n s ub sta nc e .” Jame s L . F e e nin
v. Ke vin My e rs , War de n, No . M 20 02 -0 17 70 -C CA -R 3- CO , 2 00 3 WL 18 72 64 6, a t *1 (T e nn . Crim. App., at Na shville, Apr. 11, 2003), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. O ct. 13, 2003); see also State v. Nix on, 977 S.W .2d 119, 121 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) . These statutory require ments include the failure of the District Att orney

Gene ral to sig n the indictment. Nix on, 977 S.W .2d at 121. Further, “ an objection to a def

ect of this nature must be made pre- trial, and not in a c ollatera l, post-trial habea s corpus pe tition.” Nelson B. Gra ves v. Howa rd Carlton, Warden, N o. 03C01-9705-CR-00171, 1998 WL 133840 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, J une 7, 1999), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. N ov. 2, 1998); see T enn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2). The rec ord bef ore u s d o es not show that the Petitioner made a timely motion to di smiss t he i n dictment beca use it lacke d the District Attorney Gene ral’s sig natur e . T he Pe tit ion e r p ro c e e de d to tr ia l with ou t obje c tio n, a nd he , th e re fo re , w a ive d a ny de fe c ts in his indi ctment making th e i n d i ctment valid. Ther efor e, we conclude that this iss ue is without
me ri t. Finally , the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to habeas c orpu s relief beca use the trial
c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r

f o r a b il l o f p ar ti c ular s , a n d th e St a te f a il e d to c o mp ly

w ith th is o r d e r

. We conclude that this is not a prope r issue to raise in a habe as cor pus proce ed i n g. A wr i t o f habe as corpus is a vailable only when it a ppear s on the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord that the convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction to convi ct or sentenc e the Petitioner, or that the sentenc e of imprisonment or other re straint has ex pired. Arc her, 851 S.W .2d at 164; Potts , 833 S.W .2d at 62. The Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this issue.-5- III. Conclusion

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing a uthorities and rea soning, we conclude that the Petitioner is not entitl ed to a writ of habea s corpus. Ac cording ly , we a ffirm the ha beas c orpus court’s jud g me nt.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE