### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs A ugus t 21 , 200 7

JAM ES S WIGGETT v. HOWA RD CA RLT ON, WAR DEN
Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County No. 4974 Robert

E. Cup p, Jud ge

No. E2007-00418-CC A-R3- HC - F iled October 23, 2007

The Petitioner, James Swigg ett, appea ls the summary dismiss al of his petition for the wr it of habea s corpus. Swig g ett is curr ently serving a sentence of life i mprisonment as a re sult of his conviction for first deg ree murder. On appeal, he argues that the trial c ourt err ed in conc luding that his petition failed to state a

colora ble claim for habea s corpus relief

. After revie w, we a ffirm the judg ment of the J ohnson County

Criminal Court dis missing the petition.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

J ames E. Swig g ett, Pr o s e , Mountain City , Tenne ssee.

Robert E. C o o p er , J r., Att orney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; and L eslie E. Price , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

Th e Pe tit ion e r i s c ur

re ntl y an inmate a t th e No rt

he a st C or re c tio na l Co mpl e x in Mounta in City , wher e he is ser

ving a life sentenc e stemming from his first deg ree murder conviction in Gree ne County . In J anuar

y 1992, the Petitioner and two c o-def endants we re trie d for f

irst deg ree murder, and the pr oo f at t ri al es t ablished that on the morningof Mar ch 6, 1989, the Petitioner we nt to the victim’s place of

business, pulled out a pistol, a n d s h o t t h e victim twice. State v. Jam es ( Jim) Swi gge tt , No. 03C-01-9209-CR-00312 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, No v

. 2 3 , 1 994), pe rm . to appeal denied, c oncurring in results only, (Tenn. Mar. 27, 1995). The jury convicted the Petitioner of first degree murder; howe ver, the two co-de fenda nts were acquitted of

all char g es. Id . The State ’s th eory of pr os e c uti on a t tr ia l w a s th a t th e Pe tit ion e r’ s tw o c o- de fe nd ants ha d h ir e d h im t o
mur de r t he vic tim . T he Pe tit ion e r’ s f ir st de g re e mur de r c on vic tio n w a s a ff ir me d o n d ir e c t a

pp e a l. Id

. Moreove r, this c ase ha s been the subject of e x tensive appe llate litigation, with the instant petition-2-

beingthe Petitioner’s third petition for habe as corpus r elief. See J am es E . S

wig ge tt v . H owa rd Carlton, W

arden , No. E2006-00049- CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvil le, Oct. 24, 2006) ; Jame s E. Swiggett v. Howard Carl ton, W arden , No. E2003-02212- CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvil le, Fe b. 10, 2004), p e rm

. to a p p e a l d e n ie d, (Tenn. Ma

y 10, 2004). Additionally , the Petitioner has pursued p o s t -c o n v iction relief w ithout avail. See J am es E . S

wig ge tt v . S tate , No. E2002-00174-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, Oct. 15, 2002), perm. to appeal de nied, (T e nn

. F e b. 3, 20 03 ); J

am es E . S wig ge tt v . S tate , No. 03C01-9804-CR-00161 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, May

4, 1999), perm. to appeal de nied, (Tenn. N ov. 9, 1999).

On Novembe r 3, 2006, the Petitioner filed the instant pe tition for the writ of habe as cor pus in the J ohnson County Criminal Court, alleg ing that his conviction was void beca use i t violated the “rule of consistenc y .” In response , the State filed a motion to di smiss t he petition, alleg ing that the Petitioner failed to state a colora ble claim for

habea s corpus re lief. The Petitioner’s petition was denied by order of the trial c ourt on J anuar y 25, 2007.

Ana lys is

The Petitioner conte nds on appea l that his petiti on for the writ of habe as corpus was
err oneously

dismiss ed by

the t rial court. He asserts t hat t he question fa cingthis court is “[w] hether , under the ‘rule of

consistency ’, the [Petiti oner] suffe red a serious v i o l ation of his rig hts under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th or 14th Amendments to the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United States of Americ a by

an inconsistent verdict[.] ” The P etitioner subm its that the State’s sole theor y of prose cution was that his two co-def

endants hire d him to commit a murde r and that, beca use t h e co -d ef

en dants wer e acquitted of

first d eg ree murder, “ [t ]he inconsistent verdicts rende rs [sic] his conviction and subsequent judg ments void from the re cord of the proc eeding s ag ainst him.” Wit hout any discussion of their holdings , the Petitioner cites two United States Supreme Court decisions, Morrison v. Cal ifo rn ia , 291 U.S. 82, 54 S. C t. 281 (1934), and Hartzell v. United States , 3 22 U. S. 6 80 , 6 4 S. Ct. 1233 (1944), in sol e s u p p o rt o f h is positi on that his conviction for fir st deg ree murder is void. Conversely , the State ar g ues that the Petitioner has failed to state a colora ble claim for

habea s corpus relief , beca use t h e “r u l e of consistency” in ver dicts is more aptly applied in ca ses involving conspirac y

. A petition for habe as cor

pus relief may only be g rante d when the judgme nt is shown to be void, rathe r than mer ely

voidable. Tay lor

v . S tate , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A judg ment is void only

when it appe ars u pon the fa ce of the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon wh ic h th e jud g me nt i s r e nd e re d th a t th e c on vic tin g c ourt wa s w ith out juri sd ic tio n o r a uth ority to sentenc e a defe ndant or that a defenda nt’s sentenc e has e x pired. Arc he r v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)

.

T h e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s a r g u m e n ta s t o s e e m i n g l y i n c o n s i s t e n tv e r d i c t s i s c l e ar l y m i s p l a c e d

. In Morrison , a ca se up o n which the Petitioner re lies, the United States Supreme Court re verse d the

c on sp ir a c y c onvic tio n of two de fe nd ants fo r v iol a tin g the Al ie n L and L aw o f C a lif

or nia . 2 91 U. S. at 97, 54 S. Ct. at 287. The only aspec t of the Court’s holding in Morrison tha t c ou ld c on c e iva

bly-3-

be c on str ue d a s g e rm ane to th e P etition e r’ s p re se nt c la im i s th e Court ’s re c og nit ion that “ [i]t is impossibl e in the nature of things for a man to conspire with himself.” Id . at 92, 54 S. Ct. at 285. The Court co n cl u ded that the e vidence was leg ally insufficient to support the c onviction of one defe ndant and that the conviction of the sole coconspirator should similarly be voided. Id . at 92-97; 54 S. Ct . at 285-87 ; s e e als o G e tsy v . M itc he ll , 2007 FED App. 0281P (6th Cir.) (cha rac terizing the Morrison ho ldi nga s “ re versi ngtw o d e fe nd ants ’ j oint c on sp ir a c y c on vic tio ns wh e re du e pr oc e ss prec luded the state’ s relianc e on a le g al pr es u m p t i o n to establish an eleme nt of the conspira cy”). Howeve r, neither the P etitioner i n this case , nor his co-de fenda nts, were char g ed with or c onvicted of conspira cy . All were char g ed with first degree murder. F urthermor e, the other decision cited by the Petitioner, Hartzel v. United States , 322 U. S. at 687 , 64 S. Ct. a t 12 36 -3 7, is who lly ina pp os ite to the P etitioner’s argument, as t he S upreme Court in that case reve rsed the c onviction of a de fenda nt for insubordination base d only upon its conclusion that the evidenc e did n o t s u pport a findingof specific intent. See also United St ates v. Crayton , 3 5 7 F. 3 d 5 6 0 , 5 6 6 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Bucuv alas , 909 F.2d 593, 597 ( 1st C i r. 1990), in which the First Circuit stated “ [t ]he Hartzel decision . . . did not involve inconsistent jury verdic ts”).
Reg arding seeming ly inconsistent verdicts, in W igg ins v . S tate , 498 S.W .2d 92, 93-94 (Te nn. 1973), spec ifically

adopting the rati o n al e of Dunn v. United States , 284 U.S. 390, 52 S. C t. 189 (1 93 2) , o ur

su pr e me c ourt

he ld a s f oll ow s:

Consist ency

in verdic ts for multiple count indictments is unnecessar y as ea ch count is a s e p ar a te in d ic tm e n t. T h e r e in li e s th e e s s e n ti a l r e a s o n in g

. A n a c qu itta l on one

c ount c ann ot b e c on sid e re d r e s j udic a ta to a no the r c ount e ve n th ou g h b oth c ounts ste m f ro m th e same c ri min a l tr ans a c tio n. Th is C ourt wi ll n ot u

ps e t a se e min g ly inconsistent verdict by

speculating a s to the jury ’s re asoning if we a re satisfied that the evidenc e esta

blishes g uilt of t he offense upon which the c onviction was re turned.

As the trial cour

t corre ctly

noted in its order de nying ha beas c orpus re l i ef

: “T h er e is no showing in this record that the verdic ts in thi s case are inconsist en t

. T h e fact[] that the petitioner shot the victim a

nd as pointed out by

the State the proof

in this case did not nece ssarily show that the co-defe ndants wer e participants.” W e agree that it does not consequently follow that the jury ’s g uilty verdic t as to the Petitioner and its acquittal of his two c o -d ef en d an t s wer e in any

way inconsistent.

Be cause the petitioner ha s clea rly failed to establish or eve n alleg e that the tria l court wa s without jurisdiction or authority to sentence him, or that his sentence h as ex pired, the pe titioner’s argument on appea l is without merit.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon t he foreg oing, the judgme nt of t he J ohnson County Criminal Court is aff

irmed.

___________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE