IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

ASATA D. LOWE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hickman County

No. 08-5091C

No. M2009-00444-CCA-R3-HC - Filed Janaury 13, 2010

The Appellant, Asata D. Lowe, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus

relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be

granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed

Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES and

JERRY L. SMITH, JJ. joined.

Asata D. Lowe, pro se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; Clarence E. Lutz, Assistant Attorney General,

for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Appellant was convicted of two counts first degree murder and one count of especially

aggravated robbery in 2000, and he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. State v.

Asata Lowe, No. E2000-01591-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31051631 (Tenn. Crim. App., Sep. 16,

2002), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn., Feb. 3, 2003). The Appellant unsuccessfully pursued postconviction relief. See Asata Lowe v. State, No. E2006-02028-CCA-Mr3-PC, 2008 WL 631169

(Tenn. Crim. App., Mar. 10, 2008), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn., Aug. 25, 2008). The Appellant

filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus on November 5, 2008. The Appellant claimed

his sentence has expired and/or that the judgments of his convictions are void because of the

ineffective assistance of his attorney and other alleged errors at trial. The Appellant also claimed

that those sections of the code which criminalize murder and robbery as well as the Sentencing

Reform Act of 1989 are unconstitutional. The trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing. 

The Appellant appealed, and the State has filed a motion to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal

Appeals Rule 20. For the reasons stated below, the State’s motion is granted.
Article I, Section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantees the right to seek habeas corpus

relief, and Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 29-21-101 et seq. codify the applicable procedures

for seeking such a writ. However, the grounds upon which our law provides relief are very narrow. 

McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001). Habeas corpus reliefis available in this state only

when it appears on the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings that the trial court was

without jurisdiction to convict or sentence the defendant or that the sentence of imprisonment has

otherwise expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). In other words, habeas

corpus relief may only be sought when the judgment is void, not merely voidable. Taylor v. State,

995 S.W.2d 78, 83(Tenn. 1999). "[W]here the allegations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do

not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may correctly dismiss the petition without a

hearing." McLaney, 59 S.W.3d at 93. A petitioner cannot collaterally attack a facially valid

conviction in a habeas corpus proceeding. Potts v. State, 833 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992); State ex

rel. Holbrook v. Bomar, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (Tenn. 1963). Unlike a post-conviction petition, the

purpose of a habeas corpus petition is to contest a void, not merely voidable, judgment. State ex rel.

Newsome v. Henderson, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (Tenn. 1968).

Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that the trial court did not err in dismissing

the Appellant’s habeas corpus petition. Even if the Appellant’s claims alleging ineffective assistance

of counsel and other trial errors have merit, such claims would render the judgments voidable, not

void, and they may not be collaterally attacked in a suit for habeas corpus relief. Moreover, the

Appellant’s argument that the criminal code violates his inalienable freedom to commit the acts of

first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery is patently frivolous. See Hall v. State, 270

S.W. 84, 85 (Tenn. 1925) (“The power to define what shall constitute a criminal offense is

committed to the discretion of the Legislature, subject to constitutional limitation and safeguards,

beyond which the courts do not let the Legislature pass.”); Williams v. State, No. 03C01-9209-CR00306, 1993 WL 243869 (Tenn. Crim. App., July 6, 1993). The Appellant’s blanket attacks against

the constitutionality of the criminal statutes are without merit. 

For these reasons, the State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed

in accordance with Rule 20.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE

2