### IN TH E C O U R T O F A PPEA LS O F TEN N ESSEE AT J ACKS ON A S S I G N E D O N B R I E F S A U G U S T 24, 2007

R O BER T R O Y SD EN V. G LEN TU R N ER , W A R D EN
An Appeal f

rom the Chancer y Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 16102 Mar tha Brasfi eld, Chancellor



### __________________________ No. W2007-01144-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Dece m ber 18, 2007

________________________ __ T h i s is an appe al of a

habea s corpus pe tition fil ed by a prisoner . The a

ppellant prisoner

filed a petition f o r w r it o f a h a

b e a s c o r p u s in th e c h an c e r

y c o u rt. T h e c h an c e r

y c o u rt d e n ie d the prisoner’ s habea s petition. The prisoner a ppeale d. We vacate the judg ment an d d ismiss the petition, finding that the c hance ry court did not have jurisdiction. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court is Vacat ed and th e Appeal is Dism issed f or Lack of S ubject M atte r Jurisdiction

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., d e li v e r e d th e o p in io no f

th e Co u rt, in

w h ic h W. F RAN K C RA W FO RD , P

. J. W.S . and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined. Robert Roy sden, pro se , Whit eville, Tenne ssee.
David H. F indley , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, G len Turne r.

OP IN ION
The appea l involves a habea s corpus petition f iled by Petitioner/Appel l an t Robert Roy sd e n, c ur

re ntl y se rv inga

fo rt y -o ne y e ar p ri so n s e nte nc e a t th e Ha rd e man Co un ty Cor re ct i o n al Facility

in Whi teville, Tenne ssee. The history of his conviction is set forth in an op ini on by the Te nn e sse e Cou

rt of Cr imi na l App e a ls:

Th e pe tit ion e r w a s in dic te d b y the Roa ne County Gran d J ury

on on e c ount o f f

ir st deg ree preme ditated murder , two counts of first de g ree felony murder, one count of the ft of pr op e rt y ov e r $ 50 0, a

Cla ss E fe lony , a

nd three c ounts of

fo rg e ry , a lso
a Cla ss E f

e l o n y , b a s e d o n h i s M ar c h 5 , 2 0 0 0 , p art i c i p a t i o n w i t h a c o d e f e n da nt i n the murder

of an e lderly

wom an acquaintanc e duringthe cour se of a robber y and theft. On Apr il 2, 2002, the petitioner pled g uilty to one count o f second deg ree mur de r, on e c ount of the ft of pr op e rt y ov e r $ 50 0, and

thr e e c ounts of

fo rg e ry in
exc h an g e for

the dismissal of the rema ining c ounts of the indictment and the dismis s al of a

subsequent attempted e scape char g e pendingag ainst him. P ursuant-2-

t o t h e t e r m s o f h i s p l e a a g r e e m e n t , t h e p e t i t i o n e r w a s s e n t e n c e d

a s a R an g e II offe nder to for

ty y ear s at 100% for

t h e sec ond deg ree murder c onviction, two y e ars fo r t

he the ft c on vic tio n, and

on e y ear for each

of the fo rg e ry

c on vic tio ns

. Al l o f th e s e n te n c e s w e r e o r d e r e d to b e s e r v e d c o n c u r

r e n tl y w it h th e e xc e p tion of one of the forg ery

sentenc es, wh i ch wa s order ed to be se rved c onsecutively to the fo rt y -y e ar s e nte nc e fo r s e c on d d e g re e mur de r, fo r a tot a l of fo rt y -o ne y e ars

. Roy sd e n v . St ate , No. E2005-00113- CCA-R3-PC, 2005 W L307156 8, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 2005), app. denied , (T enn. March 27, 2006). A fter ple ading g uilty , Roy sden soug ht po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f, ass ert ingthat hi s g uil ty ple a wa s n e ith e r k

no wi ngno r v olu

nta ry , d ue to ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. The trial co u rt d en ied Roy sden’s pe tition, findi ng that his plea was knowingand voluntary . Roy sden appe aled, a nd the Court of Criminal Appea ls affirme d. Dissatisfied with this result, Roy s d en fi led a pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus in the Cha nc e ry Court of Ha rd e man Co un ty , T e nn e sse e . In h is p e tit ion , Roy sd e n a rgue d th a t hi s g uil ty ple a w a s u n c o n s ti tuti o n a l b e c a u s e th e tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t a d dr e s s h im p e r s o n a ll y in open court
re g ard ingwh e the r h e wa s e nte ri nghis g uil ty ple a vo lun tari ly , k

no wi ngly , and wi th understanding . The Chanc ery Court denied Roy sden’s ha beas pe tition, findi n g t h at the substance of the claim had previously been deter mined. Fr om that dismissal, Roy s d en now appea ls. O na p p e a l , R o ys d e na g a i nar g u e s t h a th i s g u i l t y p l e a w a s n e i t h e r

kn o w i n g n o r

v o l u n t a r y, and se e ks ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f o n th a t ba sis

. At the outset, we must addr ess the trial c ourt’s subject matter jurisdiction, even thou gh
n ei ther pa

rty has ra ised the issue. Fi r s t Am. T r us t Co

. v

. Fra nk li n- M ur r a y D e v . Co

. , L.P. , 59 S.W .3d 135, 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Te nn. R. Ap p

. P

. 1 3 (b ). Subject matter jur isdiction involves a cour

t’s power to adjudicate a

matter be fore it. Fir

st A m. Tru st , 5 9 S

. W

. 3 d at 140 (citing No rthl

and Ins. Co . v

. St ate , 33 S.W .3d 727, 729 (Tenn. 2000) ). “I ssues conc erning subject matter jur isdiction are so i m p o rt ant that appe llate cour ts must address them eve n if they
wer e not ra ised in the trial cour t.” Id. A judg ment o r o rd er en tere d by a cour t without subj ect matter jurisdiction is void, and we must v aca te such a n order and dismiss the case w ithout
rea ching the merits. Id. a t 14 1; see Moore v. Te ddleton , No. W2005-02746-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 3199273, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2006).
Section 29-21-101 of

the Tenne ssee Code A nnotated states: “A ny person imprisoned or restra ined of liberty , under a ny prete nse whatsoever, e x cept in ca ses speci fi ed in § 29-21-102, may prosec ute a wr it of habea s corpus, to inquire into the ca use of s u ch i m p ri s o nment and
re s t ra i n t

. ” T

. C

. A. § 2 9 -2 1 -1 0 1 (2 0 0 0 ). T h e w ri to f h ab ea s co rp u s “m ay b e gr a n t e d b y

an y j u d ge of the c ircuit or cr iminal courts, or by any chanc ellor in cases of equitable cognizanc e .” T.C.A. § 29-21-103 ( 2000) (e mphasis added) . I n the context of its dis cussion of the c oncurr ent jurisdiction of the circ uit and chanc ery courts, the tre atise G I B S ON ’ S S UI TS I N C H A N CERY addre sses this lim it at i o n o n t he author ity of the c hance ry

court: “Chanc ery

Court has no jurisdiction of criminal matters, a nd a Chanc ellor may

no t gra n t t h e writ to enquire into the restra int of p ri s o n er s o r t he validity of a c riminal conviction. The limiting wor ds ‘in case s of equitable c og nizance’ r efe r to restra ints not criminally imposed o r s an ct ioned.” G I B S ON ’ S S UI TS I N C H A N CERY , § 1.08, fn. 43 (8 ed. 2004). Thus, the chanc ery courts have jurisdiction over th equitable matter s but lack jurisdiction over c riminal matters. Se eid

.-3-

I n this case, Roy sden filed a petition for a wri t o f h abea s corpus in the Chanc ery Court of Har deman Count y , T en n es s ee. I n his petition, R oy sden ar g ued that his g uilty plea wa s neither kn ow ingno r v olu

nta ry be c a us e the tria l c ourt

did no t a dd re ss h im p e rs on a lly

in o pe n c ourt

to de t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

h e w a s e n t e r i n g h i s g u i l t y p l e a v o l u n t ar i l y , k

n o w i n g l y , an d

w i th
un de rs tand ing . Cl e arl y , h e a sk s th e Cha nc e ry Co urt t o in qu ir e and c on sid e r t

he va lid ity

of his g uil ty pl ea and his re su lti ngc on vic tio n, a ma tte r o uts ide the jur isd ic tio n o f t he Cha nc e ry Court

. Acc o rd i ng ly , we must conc lude that the Chanc ery Court of Har deman County , Tenne ssee lac ked subject matter jur is d i cti on to consider Roy sden’s pe tition for a writ of ha beas c orpus. Ther efor e, we va ca t e t h e j u dg ment of the Chanc ery Court and dismiss t he petition for lac k of subject matter jur isd ic tio n. Th is h old ingpr e te rm its the iss ue s r a ise d in thi s a pp e a l. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is vacat ed an d t he appe al is dismis sed for lack of subject
ma tte r j ur isd ict ion . Co sts on a pp e a l are to b e ta xed

to t he Ap pe lla

nt, Rob e rt

Roy sd e n, and

his
s u r e t y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o nm ay i s s u e , i f n e c e s s ar y.

__________________________________________ HOL L Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE