IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

GREGORY SCOTT SPOONER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hancock County

No. CR-2490 James E. Beckner, Judge

No. E2004-02160-CCA-R3-HC - Filed July 7, 2005

The petitioner, Gregory Scott Spooner, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition

for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial

court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The

petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion

is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

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

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

JAMES CURWOOD WITT,JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOSEPH M. TIPTON and

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J.J., joined. 

Gregory Scott Spooner, Mountain City, Tennessee, Pro se. 

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Seth P. Kestner, Assistant Attorney General; C.

Berkely Bell, Jr., District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 28, 1993, the petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Hancock County Criminal

Court of six counts of rape and one count of exhibiting material harmful to a minor. He was

sentenced as a multiple rapist to an effective sentence of forty-eight years incarceration with the

Tennessee Department of Correction. The petitioner’s direct appeal of his convictions to this court

was dismissed because he had escaped from custody. See State v. Gregory Scott Spooner, No.

03C01-9402-CR-00046 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 3, 1994)(order). 

On August 2, 2004, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He asserted that

his sentence was improperly enhanced and he was sentenced as a multiple offender without the

requisite number of prior convictions, violating his due process rights and resulting in a void

judgment. He sought immediate release from custodyor an amended sentencing judgment. The trial

court dismissed the petition, finding that “none of the allegations show any violation of due process

or unconstitutional custody of the petitioner.” 
See Gregory Scott Spooner v. State, No. 03C01-9608-CR-00283 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 1998), app.

1

denied (Tenn. Feb. 16, 1999)(affirming denial of post-conviction relief). 

-2-

In Tennessee, “[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of his liberty, under any pretense

whatsoever, except [those held under federal authority], may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to

inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint.” Church v. State, 987 S.W. 2d 855, 857

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); T.C.A.. § 29-21-101. A writ of habeas corpus may be granted only when

the petitioner has established lack of jurisdiction for the order of confinement or that he is otherwise

entitled to immediate release because of the expiration of his sentence. See Ussery v. Avery, 222

Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656 (1968); State ex rel. Wade v. Norvell, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 447, 443

S.W.2d 839 (1969). A petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus may be summarily

dismissed by a trial court if it fails to indicate that the petitioner's conviction is void. T.C.A. §

29-21-109. 

In the present case, we observe initially that the petitioner has failed to comply with the

statutory requirements for pursuing state habeas corpus relief. See T.C.A. §§ 29-21-101 - 29-21-

130. Most significantly, the petitioner has not attached copies of the judgments by which he is being

restrained or give a satisfactory reason for their absence. See T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2). Although

the petition was dismissible on this basis alone, the trial court, within his discretion, nonetheless

considered the petition on its merits. See T.C.A. § 29-21-109. Examining the petitioner’s claims,

this court concludes that they do not merit relief. The petitioner claims that he was erroneously

classified as a multiple offender, that enhancement factors were improperly applied, and that his due

process rights were violated at sentencing. These claims, even if proven, would render the

judgments voidable rather than void. Therefore, they are not cognizable in a habeas corpus

proceeding and will not support issuance of the writ. See, e.g., Luttrell v. State, 644 S.W.2d 408,

409 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982). Further, because the petitioner has previously sought post-conviction

relief and his petition was denied on its merits, he may not present his claims in a second post- 1

conviction petition. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102(c). The trial court properly dismissed the petition. 

 

Upon due consideration of the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the court

concludes that the petitioner has not established a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief.

Accordingly, the state’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance

with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

___________________________________

 JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE