IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

EDDIE A. MEDLOCK v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Trousdale County

No. 16-CV-4566 John D. Wootten, Jr., Judge

___________________________________

No. M2016-02460-CCA-R3-HC

___________________________________

The Appellant, Eddie A. Medlock, is appealing the trial court’s order denying his petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm 

pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

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

to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER and ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JJ., joined.

Eddie A. Medlock, Hartsville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Counsel, 

for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 24, 1997, the Appellant pled guilty to two separate counts of robbery, 

one count of aggravated assault, two separate counts of attempted aggravated kidnapping, 

and one count of coercion of a witness. The Appellant received an effective concurrent 

three-year sentence for all six convictions. The Appellant was subsequently convicted of 

two counts of aggravated rape and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. State 

v. Eddie Medlock, No. W2000-03009-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1549707 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. Jan. 16, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 1, 2002). The Appellant was 

sentenced to sixty years on each count. Id. The sentences for the rape counts were 

ordered to run concurrently, as were the sentences for the kidnapping counts, but the 

02/08/2017
2

sentences for the rape and kidnapping convictions were ordered to run consecutively to 

each other for a total effective sentence of one hundred and twenty years. Id. On appeal, 

this Court reversed and dismissed one of the especially aggravated kidnapping 

convictions but affirmed the remaining convictions and sentence. Id. The Appellant’s 

1997 convictions were used to enhance the sentence for the subsequent convictions. The 

Appellant was unsuccessful in his pursuit of post-conviction relief on the subsequent 

convictions. Eddie Medlock v. State, No. W2015-02130-CCA-R3-PC, 2016 WL 

6135517 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 2016), perm. app. filed (Dec. 21, 2016). The 

Appellant then filed the instant habeas corpus petition on November 7, 2016. The trial 

court summarily denied the same. This timely appeal ensued. In response to the brief 

filed by the Appellant, the State moves this Court to affirm the order of the trial court 

pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. For the reasons stated below, we grant 

the State’s motion.

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 procedure for seeking such a writ. The grounds upon which our law 

provides relief are very narrow, however. McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 

2001). Habeas corpus relief is 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). More importantly, though, habeas corpus 

relief is available only to persons who are “imprisoned or restrained of liberty.” Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 29-21-101(a). “[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.

In his petition, the Appellant attacks the validity of the sentences imposed for his 

1997 convictions. He contends concurrent sentencing was improper because he was on 

bond for three of the charges when he was arrested for committing the other three 

offenses. Thus, he argues he should have received consecutive sentencing instead. As 

the State aptly notes, the Appellant’s sentences for the 1997 convictions have long since 

expired. Although those convictions were used to enhance the sentences for his 

subsequent offenses, he is no longer “imprisoned or restrained of liberty” on the 1997 

convictions as those terms are applied in habeas corpus jurisprudence. Our Supreme 

Court has explained:

[A] person is not “restrained of liberty” for purposes of the habeas corpus 

statute unless the challenged judgment itself imposes a restraint upon the 
3

petitioner’s freedom of action or movement. Use of the challenged 

judgment to enhance the sentence imposed on a separate conviction is not a 

restraint of liberty sufficient to permit a habeas corpus challenge to the 

original conviction long after the sentence on the original conviction has 

expired.

Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 23 (Tenn. 2004). Use of the Appellant’s prior 

convictions to enhance the subsequent sentences was “merely a collateral consequence” 

of the challenged convictions and does not provide sufficient grounds for habeas corpus 

relief. See Benson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 27, 32 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Hickman). Because 

the 1997 sentences expired before the Appellant filed the instant habeas corpus petition, 

he is not “imprisoned or restrained of liberty” by those convictions and thus not entitled 

to habeas corpus relief.

Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court is hereby affirmed pursuant to Court of 

Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

____________________________________________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE