### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE
OMOWA LE A . S HAB AZZ AK A F RED ED MON D D EAN v. JA MES

WORT HINGT ON, WAR DEN Appeal from t he Circuit Court for M organ County No. 9394 E. Eugene Eb len, Jud ge

No. E2008-01627-CC A-R3- HC - Filed February 11, 2009

Th e pe tit ion e r, Om ow a le A. Sha ba z z , f ile d in the Mo rg a n Co un ty C ir c uit Cou rt a pe tit ion fo r a writ of habe as cor

pus. T h e h ab ea s corpus court summarily dismis sed the pe tition, and the petitioner appea ls. The State filed a motion re questing that this court aff irm the habe as cor

pus court’s de nial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. After r eview, w e conc lude that the petition was prope rly dismissed. Accor dingly, th e State’s motion is granted a nd the judgment of the habe as cor pus court is aff

irmed. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court is Aff irme d Pur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f C r im ina l A ppe als . N OR MA M C G EE O GLE , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR W OOD W I TT , J R ., and D. K EL LY T HOMAS , J R ., JJ., joined.
Omowale A . Shabazz , Nashville, Tenne ssee, Pro se. Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Gen er al and Reporter; and Sophia S. Lee , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
Pr e vio us ly, thi s c ou rt

su mma ri z e d th e pr oc e du ra l hi sto ry of the pe tit ion e r’ s c a se a s f

oll ow s: The Sullivan County grand jury char ged the [ p]etitioner, Fre d Edmond Dea n a/k/a Omowa le A. Shabazz , by prese ntment with one count ea ch of first degr ee mur der a nd attempted first de gree murder; a Sullivan County j ury convic ted the [p] etitioner o f sec ond degre e murder a nd attempted sec ond degre e murde r, and the trial court se nte nced him

to c on se c uti ve thi rt y a ndfi ft e e n y e ar s e nte nc e s, respe ctively. The c onvictions a nd sentenc es we re a ffirme d on direc t appea l. S ee State v. Fre d Edmond Dea n, No. 03 C0 1

- 9 5 0 8

- CC

- 0 0 2 5 1 , 1 9 9 7 W L 7 5 5 0 ( T e n n
. Crim

. A p p
. , at-2- Knoxville, Jan. 10, 1997), pe rm. app. de nied (Te nn. Sept. 2, 1997). The [p] etitioner’s post-c onviction pet i t i o n was a lso denied af ter a n evidentiary h earing, but this [c]ourt vac ated the c onviction for attempt ed second de gree murder and the Tenne ssee Supre me Court a f f irme d th a t d e c is io n
. Se e Fr e d E d mo n d D e a n v
. St a te, No. E1998-00135-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 WL 337552 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar. 21, 2000) , perm. a pp. denied ( Tenn. Nov. 13, 2000) ; Dea n v. State, 59 S.W.3d 663 (Tenn. 2001)

. Omowale A . Shabazz v. Jim Worthington, Warde n, No. E2007-00634 -C C A-R3-HC, 2007 WL 2984694, at *1 (Te nn. Crim

. Ap p
. at Knoxville, Oct. 15, 2007), pe rm. to appea l denied, (Te nn. 20 08 ). Th ereafte r, the pe tit ion e r f ile d a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion , w hic h w a s d e nie d f or failu re to comply with pr ocedur al require ments. On appea l, this court aff irmed the dismiss al of that habea s corpus pe tition. I d. at *2. The pe titioner then filed in the Morga n County Circuit Court his instant petition for habea s corpus relief

. In the petition, the petitioner ar gued that Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 39-13- 210, the sec ond degre e murder s tatute, i s unconstitutional beca use i t is vague and overbr oad in that it prohibits knowing ki llings perpetra ted in self-de fense . He a lso argued that at the time of his trial in 1 9 9 5 , T en nessee courts “de fined ‘know ing’ or ‘know ingly’ in a way that was vague and overbr oad. It wa sn’t until . .

. State v. Ducke r, 27 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2000) [wa s decide d] that the ‘knowing’ e lement was suf ficiently def

ined for s ec o n d d eg ree murder.” As furthe r support, the petitioner also cited State v
. P ag e, 8 1 S.W.3d 781, 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) and stated tha t “[t]he ‘knowing’ e lement at petitioner’ s trial was define d in the exac t manner a s that rejec ted by the Ducke r court.”
In re sponse, th e S t at e filed a motion to dismis s the petition, contending that the sec ond degre e murde r statute is not unconstitutional. In a n order , the habe as cor pus court summarily stated that “ the Cou rt

is o f the op ini on that th e pe tit ion is n ot w e ll- take n a ndthat th e [S ta te ’s ] m oti on to dismiss should be grante d.”
Th e pe tit ion e r n ow app e a ls, arg uin g th a t th e ha be a s c or pu s c ou rt wa s “e xtr e me ly va gu e ” in stating the rea sons f

or dismiss ing his petition. Further, he ar gues that Rule 12.02 of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil P roce dure ma ndated that the c ourt dismiss a habea s corpus pe tition “only when no set of fa cts will entitle the petitioner to relief , or whe n th e p et i t i o n is totally l acking in cla rity or sp e c if ic ity .” Th e pe tit ion e r do e s no t arg ue abo ut the me ri ts of his ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion . T he Sta te responds that the ha

beas c orpus court corre ctly dismiss ed the pe tition.
I nit ia lly , we no te that th e de te rm inatio n o f whe the r t o g ra nt habea s corpus relief is a que stion of law. Summ e r s v
. St a te , 2 1 2 S. W. 3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 5 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 7 )

. A s s u c h , w e w il l r e v ie w the trial court’s f indings de novo without a presumption of cor rec tness. I d. Moreove r, i t is the petitioner’s burden to d em o n s t ra t e, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, “that the sentenc e is void or that the c on fi ne me nt i s il le g a l.” Wy a tt v . St a te , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

.-3-

Article I , § 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es an a ccuse d the rig ht to seek habe as corpus r elief. See Ta

y lor v. State , 995 S

. W

. 2 d 78, 83 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . H ow e ve r, “ [s]uc h r e lie f i s available only when it appea rs from the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s that a trial c ourt was wi t h o ut jurisdiction to s entenc e a de fenda nt or that a de fenda

nt’s sentenc e of imp ri so nme nt or oth e r re str a int ha s expir e d. ” Wy a tt , 24 S.W .3d at 322; see a lso Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-2 1 -1 0 1 (2000). In other wor ds, habea s corpus re lief may be soug ht only

when the judg ment is void, n o t m er el y voidable. Ta y lor , 995 S.W .2d at 83. “A void judg ment ‘is one in which the judgme nt is facially

invalid beca

use the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judg ment or be c a us e the de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d. ’ We have re c og nize d th a t a se nte nc e imp os e d in direc t contravention of a statute, for e x ample, is void and illeg al.” Stephenson v. Car lton , 28 S.W .3d 910, 9 1 1 (T en n
. 2000) (c itation omit ted). Our supreme c ourt has stated that “[w] hen the ha beas corpus petition f

ails to demonstrate that the judg ment is void, a trial court may proper ly dismiss the petition without a hearing .” Hickma n v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004)

. I n o rd e r t o d e te rm ine wh e the r t he tr ia l court c or

re c tly dis mis se d th e pe tit ion , w e mus t f ir st deter mine whether

the petition raised g rounds for habea s corpus r elief. In the petition, the petitioner c ha lle ng e d h is s econ d d e g re e mur de r c on vic tio n, arg uin g that th e se c on d d e g re e mur de r s tatut e is un c on sti tut ion a lly va g ue
. Ho we ve r, our c a se law d oe s n ot s up po rt his c la im. Se e State v. Suttle s, 30 S.W .3d 252, 268-69 (Tenn. 2000) (appendix); State v. J err y Taylor, No. 01C01-9612-CC-00499, 1998 WL 424570, at *8 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, July 29, 1998). More over, c ontrary to the petitioner’s a ssertions, a killing in self-de fense is, under Te nnessee law, conside red justifiable. See Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 9- 11 -6 11 (a ). Thus , the pe tit ion e r is not en tit le d to hab e a s cor pu s re lie f o n th is basis.
Moreove r, re g ardingthe petitioner’s c omplaint concer ning the jury

instruction on the mens rea of “knowing ,” this c ourt has previously stated, “Err oneous jury instructions me et none of the . . . require ments for ha

beas c orpus re lief. The only m et h o d o f collater ally attackingthe judg ment beca use of c onstitut ional d ep ri v ations occa sioned by err oneous jury

instructions is by

petition for post conviction relief .” W i l l i e Edwar d Thornton v. Fr ed Rane y , Warden, No. 0 2 C 0 1

- 9 3 0 2

- C C

- 0 0 0 2 5 , 1 9 9 4 W L 2 5 8 2 7 , a t* 1 ( T e n n
. C r i m
. Ap p
. a tJ a c k s o n , J an
. 2 6 , 1 9 9 4 )

. In other w o r d s , s u c h ane r r o r , if o n e e xis te d , d o e s n o t r e n d e r th e p e ti ti o n e r ’ s c o n v ic ti o nv o id. Th e re fo re , th e pe tit ion e r i s n ot e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f o n th is b a sis

. Ba se d u po n o ur

re vie w o f t he rec or d, we c on c lud e that th e ha be a s c or pu s c ou rt pr op e rl y dismiss ed the pe tition for failure to sta te a claim war ranting habea s corpus re lief. Ac cordingly, the State’s m otion is grante d. The judgm ent of the t rial court is aff irmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, JUD GE