1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

MARVIN ANTHO NY MATTHEW S v . STATE O F TENNESSE E (TO NY PARKER, WARDEN)

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 6135 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2007-00936-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Novem ber 20, 2007

The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appe als the lower court’s de nial of his petition for ha beas c orpus. The S t ate ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affir m the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. As we conclude that the Petitioner ha s failed to a lleg e a c laim upon which habe as cor pus relief may be g rante d, we a ffirm the tria l court’s dis mis sa l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ialCo ur t Affir m e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES an d J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined. Marvin Anthony

Matthews, pro se

. Ro bert E. Co op er, J r., At to rney Gen eral & Rep ort er; Mi chael Mo ore, S ol ici to r Gen eral ; A li ce B. Lustre, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION

On Dec ember

13, 1988, a Shelby

County jury found the Petitioner, Mar vin Anthony Matthews, gui l t y o f g rand la rce ny
. See M

arvin Anthony Matthews v. State, No . 1 6 ( Te nn . Cr im. App., at Jackson, J an. 17, 1990), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Ma y 14, 1990). The jur

y further found the Petitioner to be a n habitual cr iminal and the trial cour t imposed a life sente nce. Id. The2

Petitioner’s conviction and se ntence wer e af firmed on dire ct appe al. Subsequently , the Petitioner beg an filing a series of petitions for post-convic tion relief. See, e .g., Marvin Anthony M atthews v. State, No . W2 00 3- 0298 0-C CA -R3- PC ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. , at Jac ks on , M ay 21 , 2 00 4) (p os tc o n v i c t i o np e t i t i o nb ar

r e d b y s t a tu t e o f

l i m i t a t i o ns ); Marvi n A . M att he ws v . S tate , No. W2000- 01893-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Fe b. 8, 2002) (post-conviction petition barred by statut e of lim itatio ns ); Marvin Matthews v. State, No . W1 99 9- 00 83 3- CCA -R 3- PC ( Te nn . Cr im. App., at Jackson, Apr. 17, 2001)( post-conviction petition barred by statute of limitations). One petition proved succ essful on appe al, with this Court reversing e i gh t o f t he thirtee n prior fe lony convictio n s u s ed b y

the State to prove the Petitioner’s habitual cr iminal status. See M arvin A. Ma tth e ws v . S

tate , No. 02C01-9204-CR-00091 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, F eb. 24, 1993), perm. to appeal denied , (Tenn. Jun. 3, 1993). Notwithstanding, the requisite number of qualify

ing convictions rema ined to satisfy his classification as a

n habitual cr iminal. See Marvin Matthews v. Sta te , No. W1999-00833-CCA-R3-PC.
Th e Pe tit ion e r a lso so ug ht r e lie f i n th e form of th e wr it o f h a be a s c or pu s, bu t w a s a lso
unsucce ssful. See, e .g., M a r v in A n th o n

y M a tt h e ws v

. D a v id M

ills, W arden , No. W2004-02209- CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 11, 2005), perm. to appeal de nied , ( Te nn . O c t. 24, 2005) (ha

beas c orpus re lief denie d for f ailure to state c og nizable claim); Ma rv in A . M att he ws v . S tat e , No. 02C01-9206-CC-00141 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 24, 1993) ( habea s corpus re lie f de nie d fo r fa ilure to state c og niza ble c la im) ; Marvin Anthony M atthews v. Charles C. N

oles , No. 02C01-9206-CC-00140 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, F eb. 24, 1993), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. Jun. 1, 1993) (habe as cor pus relief denied f or fa ilure to state cog nizable claim). On April 2, 2007, the Petitioner filed the prese nt a pplication for the issuance of the writ of ha be a s c or pu s. As g ro un ds fo r r e lie f, the Pe tit ion e r a lle g e d th a t th e ind ic tme nt ag a ins t him is inv a lid
a s th e un de rl y ingc on vic tio ns have be e n s e t a sid e by the Court of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls. On thi s sa me date, the lowe r cour

t entere d an order dis missing t he application for ha beas c orpus re lief. In denying relief , the trial cour

t stated that “Mr. Matthews alleg es the indictment is insufficient. . .

. The Court has re viewed the attache d indictment and deter mines that it is suffic ient.” The Petitioner timely filed a notice of

appea l document.
The de termination of whe ther to g rant ha beas c orpus re lief is a question of law

. McLaney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) , overruled in part by, Sum mers v. State, 212 S.W .3d 251 (Tenn. 2007). The T ennesse e Constituti on g uara ntees a convicted c riminal defe ndant t h e ri g ht to seek habea s corpus re lief. See Tenn. Const. ar t. I , § 15. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which habea s corpus relief will be gra

nted are ver

y narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn.1999) . A petition for ha beas co rpus relief may

only be g rante d when the judg ment is shown to be void, rather than
mere ly voidable. Id. A judgme nt is void only when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judg ment or the
rec ord of the proceeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed that the c onvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction or authority to se ntence a defe ndant or that a defe ndant' s sentenc e has e x pired. Archer v. State, 85 1 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 4 (T e nn
. 19 93 ). On the oth e r ha nd , a vo ida

ble jud g me nt o r s e nte nc e is one which is fa cially

v al i d an d which re quires evide nce be yond the fa ce of the judg ment or the
rec ord of the pr ocee dings to e stablish its invalidity

. Tay lor , 995 S.W .2d at 83.3

A p e t i t i o n e r

b e ar s t h e b u r d e no f

e s t a b l i s h i n g a v o i d j u d g m e n t o r

i l l e g a l c o n f

i n e m e n tb y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. W yatt v. State, 24 S.W. 3d

31 9, 32 2 ( Te nn .2 00 0) . F ur the rm or e , it

is permissible for a

court to summarily dismiss a habe as cor pus petition, without the appointment of counsel a nd without an evidentiar

y hear ing, if

there is nothing on the fa ce of the record or judgme nt to indicate that the c onvictions or sentenc es addr essed ther ein ar e void. Passarell a v. S tate, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. A valid indictment is essential to vest jurisdiction in the convictingcourt, a nd an indictment t h at i s s o d ef

ec t i v e t h at i tfa i l s t o v es tj u ri s d i ct i o nm ay b e ch al l en ged i n a hab ea s co rp u s p ro ce ed i n g. See W yatt v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319,323 (Tenn. 2000). Our supre me cour t has held that an indictment
me e ts c on sti tut ion a l r e qu ir e me nts if it pr ov ide s su ff

ic ie nt inf or matio n ( 1) to e na

ble the a c c us e d to know the ac cusation to which a nswer is require d, (2) to fur nish the court ade quate ba sis for the entr y of a proper judgme nt, and (3) to protec t the accused from double jeopa rdy

. Sta te v . H

ill , 954 S.W .2d 7 2 5 , 7 2 7 ( T e n n
. 1 9 9 7 )

. A f te r r e v ie w in g th e in d ic tm e n t a tt a c h e d to th e p e ti ti o n , the trial court
c o n c l u d e d

t h a tt h e i n d i c t m e n t m e e t s b o t h t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l an d s t a tu t o r y r e qu i r e m e n t s
. S i m i l ar l y, we a lso conclude that the indictment upon which the Petitioner’s c onviction is based, i s sufficient to vest jurisdi ct i o n i n t he convic ting c ourt. Additionally , we a cknowledg e that this Court has pr e vio us ly

de te rm ine d th a t the fa c t tha t eig ht of the Pe tit ion e r’ s pri or c on vic tio ns we re va c a te d d id not entitle the Petitioner to relief from habitual c riminality since five of the qua lify ing c onvictions
rema ined. Se e Ma rv in M att he ws v . S tate , N o. W19 99 -0 08 33 -C CA -R 3- PC.

When an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, the Court of Criminal A p p ea l s may a ff irm the j ud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt

by me mor and

um o pin ion

wh e n th e jud g me nt i s rend e re d or the a c tio n take n in a pr oc e e din g wi tho ut a jur y and su c h jud g me nt or a c tio n is no t a deter mination of guilt, and the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the findi ng of t he trial judge. See Tenn. R. Ct

. Cr im

. Ap p
. 2 0

. We c o n c lu d e th a t th is c a s e s a ti s f ie s th e c r it e r ia o f Rule 20. Ac c or din g ly , it

is or dere d th a t th e State ' s mo tio n is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is
a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th R

ule 20 , Ru le s o f t

he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

___________________________________



### J.C . MCLIN, JUDGE