IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

HARTWELL D. PRICE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County

Nos. 17203, 12361 Christopher V. Sockwell, Chancellor

___________________________________

No. M2022-01556-CCA-R3-HC

___________________________________

The Appellant, Hartwell D. Price, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his 

petition for habeas corpus relief. 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 Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

JILL BARTEE AYERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.

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

Hartwell D. Price, Pro se.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Appellant is appealing the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus. The record and the Appellant’s brief have been filed. In response, the 

State has filed a motion to affirm the ruling of the trial court pursuant to Court of Criminal 

Appeals Rule 20. For the reasons stated below, said motion is hereby granted.

In 1996, the Appellant pled nolo contendere to a charge of first-degree murder in 

return for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Price v. State, No. 01C01-

9901-CC-00027, 1999 WL 1073604 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 1999), perm. app. denied

(Tenn. May 15, 2000). He was unsuccessful in his subsequent pursuit of post-conviction 

relief. Id. In August 2022, the Appellant filed a habeas corpus petition claiming the State 

failed to give proper notice of penalty, he misunderstood the consequence of his plea and 

the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The trial court dismissed the

12/08/2023
- 2 -

petition because the Appellant failed to show how the judgment of conviction is illegal or 

his sentence has expired.

The determination of whether to grant habeas corpus relief is a question of law.

Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007). As such, this Court reviews a trial 

court’s findings de novo without a presumption of correctness. Id. Article I, section 15 of 

the Tennessee Constitution guarantees an accused the right to seek habeas corpus relief.

See Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). However, “[s]uch relief is available 

only when it appears from the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings that a 

trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence a defendant or that a defendant’s sentence 

of imprisonment or other restraint has expired.” Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 

2000).; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101. In other words, habeas corpus relief may 

be sought only when the judgment is void, not merely voidable. Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83. 

“A void judgment ‘is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked 

jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment or because the defendant’s sentence has 

expired.’ We have recognized that a sentence imposed in direct contravention of a statute, 

for example, is void and illegal.” Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) 

(quoting Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83).

None of the Appellant’s claims warrant the granting of habeas corpus relief. The 

claim concerning his understanding of the consequence of his plea was decided against him 

in his prior post-conviction proceeding. Price, 1999 WL 1073604. Accordingly, that 

determination is binding in the instant proceeding. See Antonio L. Sweatt v. State, No. 

M1999-01300-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 WL 255328 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 6, 2000), 

perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2000) (discussing principle of res judicata in habeas 

corpus proceedings). Moreover, as the State correctly observes, a valid nolo plea 

“constitutes an admission of all facts necessary to convict and waives all non-jurisdictional 

defects and constitutional irregularities which may have existed prior to the entry of the ...

plea.” State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540, 542 (Tenn. 1999). Thus, the Appellant’s other two 

claims are not actionable herein. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in summarily 

dismissing the Appellant’s petition.

For these reasons, the order of the habeas corpus court is affirmed in accordance 

with Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. 

___________________________

Judge Jill Bartee Ayers