IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs January 3, 2024

CRAIG MARKEEM TAYLOR v. BRANDON WATWOOD, WARDEN

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

No. 23-CR-10932 Mark L. Hayes, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2023-01169-CCA-R3-HC

___________________________________

The Petitioner, Craig Markeem Taylor, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, arguing that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily dismissing the 

petition without an evidentiary hearing or the appointment of counsel. Based on our 

review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. 

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

JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR.,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. ROSS DYER AND 

MATTHEW J. WILSON, JJ., joined.

Craig Markeem Taylor, Tiptonville, Tennessee, Pro Se. 

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; and Ronald L. Coleman, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

In December 2015, the Petitioner was convicted by a Madison County Criminal 

Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder,

attempted aggravated burglary, and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. After 

merging the felony murder convictions into the first degree premediated murder 

conviction, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective term of life plus eight 

01/25/2024
- 2 -

years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. State v. Taylor, No. W2018-00242-

CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1435126, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2019), no perm. app. 

filed. 

The convictions stemmed from a November 15, 2012, incident in which the masked 

Petitioner attempted to force a woman at gunpoint inside her Jackson home and then 

exchanged gunfire with the woman’s boyfriend inside the home, resulting in the 

boyfriend’s death. Id. A witness identified the Petitioner as a man who was near the scene

immediately prior to the shooting, and the Petitioner’s palm print was found on the outside 

air conditioning unit of the home and his DNA on a mask discarded in the back yard. Id. 

On July 17, 2023, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

which he alleged that his judgments were void and illegal because they were imposed in 

contravention of Rule 31 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 40-20-101, which provide, respectively, that the jury return its 

verdict in open court and that the trial court, after the verdict, “shall pronounce judgment.” 

The Petitioner relies for his assertion on the fact that his trial transcript in his direct appeal 

ends after the last defense witness’s testimony. Attached as “Exhibit D” to his petition is 

the fourth of four volumes of the trial transcript, which concludes after the witness’s 

testimony with the court reporter’s parenthetical information: “(End of requested portion 

of proceedings.)” The Petitioner argues that because the trial transcript does not reflect 

that the jury returned its verdicts in open court or that the trial court pronounced the 

judgments, and because the transcript prevails when there is a conflict between the 

judgments and the transcript, his judgments must be void. 

On July 27, 2023, the habeas corpus court entered an order summarily dismissing 

the petition on the basis that it was not verified by affidavit as required by Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 29-21-107(a), and that it failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas 

corpus relief. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS

The Petitioner contends on appeal that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily 

dismissing his petition without the appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing. The 

State argues that the summary dismissal was proper because the Petitioner failed to comply 

with the strict procedural requirements for filing his petition and failed to state a colorable 

claim for habeas corpus relief. We agree with the State. 

As an initial matter, the Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory procedural 

requirements for a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The procedural requirements for 

habeas corpus relief are mandatory and must be scrupulously followed. Hickman v. State, 
- 3 -

153 S.W.3d 16, 19-20 (Tenn. 2004); Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993). 

“A habeas corpus court may properly choose to dismiss a petition for failing to comply 

with the statutory procedural requirements.” Hickman, 153 S.W.3d at 21. Because the 

Petitioner failed to verify his petition by affidavit as required, the habeas corpus court’s 

summary dismissal of the petition was proper on that basis alone. 

Furthermore, the allegations the Petitioner raised in the petition do not establish a 

cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. It is well established in Tennessee that the 

remedy provided by a writ of habeas corpus is limited in scope and may only be invoked 

where the judgment is void or the petitioner's term of imprisonment has expired. Faulkner

v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007); State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 629 (Tenn. 

2000); State v. Davenport, 980 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). A void, as 

opposed to a voidable, judgment is “one that is facially invalid because the court did not 

have the statutory authority to render such judgment.” Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 

256 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998)). A

petitioner bears the burden of establishing a void judgment or illegal confinement by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). Whether 

the petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief is a question of law, which we review de 

novo. Id. at 255; Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000). 

A trial court may properly dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus without 

appointing counsel or holding a hearing if there is nothing on the face of the judgment to 

indicate that the conviction is void or the sentence illegal. See Summers, 212 S.W. 3d at 

260. As the habeas corpus court noted, there is nothing on the face of the judgments that 

indicates that the judgments are void. The fact that the requested portion of the trial 

transcript did not include the return of the jury’s verdicts does not render the judgments 

void or the sentences illegal. Accordingly, we conclude that the habeas corpus court also 

properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus 

relief.

CONCLUSION

Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court summarily 

dismissing the petition. 

_________________________________

JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., JUDGE