### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Jun e 18, 200 8
JESSIE HO DGE S v. RIC KY J. BE LL, WAR DEN
Appeal f rom the Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No . 0 7- 13 5- II Carol L. Mc Coy, Judge

No. M2007- 01623-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Dece m ber 2, 2008

Petitioner, J essie Hodg es, wa s convicted of robber y and sente nced as a persistent offe nder to twe lve y ear s in incar cer ation. His conviction was aff irmed on direc t appea l. State v. Jessie Ne lson Hodges , No. W2001-00871-CCA-R3-CD, 20 0 2 WL 927603, at *9 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma y 3, 2002), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. N ov. 4, 2002). Petitio n er unsucce ssfully soug ht post-conviction relief

. J essi e Ho dges v . S

tate , No. W2005-01852-CCA-R3-PC, 20 0 6 W L 2 1 1 8 2 9 , at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 25, 2006), perm. app. de nied ( T e n n

. M ay 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 )

. S u b s e q u e n t l y, Petitioner sought ha

beas corpus relief in the Davidson County Chance ry Court. T he habe as cor pus c ourt dis mis se d the pe tit ion

. Pe tit ion e r a pp e a ls. We de te rm ine that th e ha be a s c or pu s c ourt pr op e rl y found that it lacke d subject matter jur isdiction. Theref ore, the judgme nt of t he habeas corpus court is affirme d.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Cha nc e r y C our t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

J essie Hodg es, Pro Se, Nashville, Te nnessee

. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; L e sli e E. Pr ic e , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; and Victor

S. J ohnson, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

On Dec ember

1, 2000, Petitioner was convic ted by a L au d er dale County J ury of robber y
. He was sente nced a s a per sistent offende r to twelve year s in incarc eration. On direct appea l, Petiti oner c halleng ed seve ral a spects of his convic tion, s p ec i fica lly the suffic iency

of the
e vid e nc e ; w he the r t

he e vid e nc e int

ro du c e d at tr ia l w a s il le g a lly ob ta ine d in

c on tr aven ti on

of his-2-

Four th Amendment rig h t s ; whether Petitioner was de prived of a n “indepe ndent ana ly sis of the evidenc e”; a

nd whether

the trial cour

t improperly

instructed the jury

. Jessie Nelson Hodges , 2002 WL 927603, at *1. The fac ts, a s summarized by this Court on direc t a ppeal, r evea led that Petitioner robbed the H & A Quick Stop in Halls, Tenne ssee. Id. at *1-6. The cashie r at the ma rket identified Petitioner as the robber in a photog raphic lineup. Id. at *3. There was also a video surveillance tape of the c rime which w as shown to the jury

. Id. Th is C ourt a ff ir me d Pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio n o n a pp e a l. Id. at *9. Subsequently , Petitioner sought post-c onviction relief. Jessie H odges , 2006 WL 211829, at *2. App ar en t l y , Petitioner filed one pe tition for post-conviction relief which wa s dismis sed. Petitioner did not appeal fr om the denial of the first petition f or post-conviction relief

. Id. Al mos t two y ear s later, Petitioner filed a second pe tition for post-convicti o n re l i ef, assertingthat he wa s de nie d an e ff

e c tiv e a pp e a l of his fi rs t pe tit ion fo r po st- c on vic tio n re lie f d ue to c ouns e l’ s f

a ilure to file a notice of appe al. The post-c onviction court denie d relief on the basis that P et i tioner had ref used the a ssistance of c ounsel and Petitioner failed to see k a timely appea l of the first petition for p o s t -convic tion relief. Id. a t * 1

. T h i s C o u rt a f f i r m e d t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n f or po stconviction re lief as untimely

. Id. at *2.

I n J anuar y of 2007, Petitioner fil ed the petition for habeas corpus relief which is the subject of the a pp e a l he re in. At

the tim e , Pe tit ion e r w a s in c arc e rate d in the Riv e rb e nd Ma ximumSe c ur ity Prison in Nashville. He filed the pe tition f o r wr i t o f h ab eas corpus in the Chance ry Court for Davidson County . I n the petit ion, he arg ued that: (1) the trial court did not g ive jury instructions as require d by Tenne ssee Rule of Criminal Proc edure 30(c) ; ( 2) the trial court di d n o t gi v e jury instructions as require d by Tenne ssee Rule of Criminal Proc edure 30(d)( 1) and ( 2); (3) the trial court did not charg e the jury

with lesser include d offe nses re quired by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-1 8 -1 1 0 (a ); an d (4) the tr ial court did not g ive any jury instructions. Petit ioner c ontended that the se a lle g e d in su ff

ic ie nc ie s o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

re su lte d in

a vo id j ud g me nt.
Th e ha be a s cor pu s c ourt de te rm ine d th a t th e iss ue s p re se nte d b y Pe tit ion e r “ sh ou ld p ro pe rl y have be en addr essed at the criminal trial court leve l” or on dire ct appe al. Fur thermore , the trial cour

t deter mined that Petitioner filed the petition in the “wr ongcourt.” As a re sult, t h e habea s corpus court dismissed the petition. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appea l. He seeks revie w of the dismissal of his petition for habea s corpus re lief.

An aly sis
On a pp e a l, Pet iti on e r co nte nd s that his judg me nt o f c on vic tio n f or ro bb e ry is v oid be c a us e the trial cour

t did not give a

ny instructions to the j ury . The State disag ree s, arguing that the habea s corpus c ourt proper ly

dismiss ed the pe tition because it did not have pr oper s u b j ec t matter jur isd ic tio n. I n th e a lte rn a tiv e , th e State argue s th a t Pe tit ion e r h a s fail ed to ill us tr a te that hi s judgme nt is void.-3-

The deter mination of whether to grant habea s corpus relief is a question of law. See H ickman
v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 16, 19 (Tenn. 2 0 0 4 ). As s u ch, we will review the habea s corpus c ourt’s finding s de novo without a pre sumption of corre ctness. Id. Mo re ov e r, it i s Pe tit ion e r’ s b ur de n to demonstrate, by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, “that the sentenc e is void or t hat the conf inement is ill eg al.” W

y att v . S tate , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

. Ar t i cle I , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constituti on g uara ntees a n acc used the rig ht to seek habea s corpus re lief. Se e Tay lor v . S tate , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only

when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re cord that the convictingcourt was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the de fenda nt or that the def

endant is still im prisoned despite the e x piration of his sentence

. Arc he r v . S tate , 8 51 S.W . 2d

15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts
v . S tate , 83 3 S.W. 2d 60 , 62 (T e nn

. 19 92 ). I n oth e r wo rd s, ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f m ay

be so ug ht o nly when the judg ment is void, not m ere ly voidable. See Taylor , 995 S.W .2d at 83. “A void judg ment ‘i s o ne in whic h th e jud g me nt is fa c ia lly inv a lid be c a us e the c ourt

la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n o r a

uth or ity to rende r t he judgment or beca use t he def

endant’ s sentence has expired.’ We have rec og nized that a sentence imposed in direc t contravention of a statute, for e x ample, is void and illeg al.” Stephenson v. Carlton , 2 8 S

. W

. 3 d

9 1 0 , 9 1 1 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Taylor , 955 S.W .2d at 83).

Howeve r, if af

ter a re view of the habea s petitioner’s filing s the habe as cor pus court de te rm ines th at th e petitio ne r w ou ld n ot b e e nti tle d to re lie f, the n th e pe tit ion may be summa

ri ly dis mis se d. T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 9; State ex re l. Byrd v. Bom ar , 381 S.W .2d 280 (Tenn. 1964). Fur ther,
a h abeas corpus c ourt may summarily

dismiss a petition for wr it of habea s corpus without the appointment of a la

wy er a nd without an evidentiar

y hear ing if

there is nothing on the fa ce of the judgme nt to indicate that the convictions addre ssed there in are void. Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) , superce ded by statute as stated in State v. Stev en S. Newman , No. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n .2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Mar. 11, 1998).

Th e pr oc e dura l r e qu ir e m e nt s f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f a r e m and a tor

y and mus t be sc ru

pu lou sly followed. Su mm e rs v . S

tate , 2 12 S.W. 3d

25 1, 26 0 ( Te nn . 2 00 7) ; Hickm an , 1 5 3 S. W. 3 d a t 1 9

- 2 0; Archer , 851 S

. W

. 2 d at 165. For the bene fit of individuals such as Petitioner, our leg islature has expli citly laid out the formal require ments for a petition f or a writ of habea s corp u s at T en nessee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107: (a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, signe d either by the par ty for whose be nefit it is intende d, or some per son on the petitioner’s be half, a nd verifie d by a ff ida vit

. (b) The petition shall state: (1) That the person in whose behalf the writ is soug ht, is il leg ally restrai n ed of liberty , and the pe rson by

whom and plac e whe re r estraine d, mentioning the na me of such person, if known, and, if unknown, descr ibing the person with a s m uch particula rity as pra cticable ;-4-

(2) The cause or pre tense of suc h restra int accor ding to the be st inf o rm at ion of the applicant, a

nd if it be by virtue of a

ny leg al proc ess, a c opy

there of shall be a

nnexed,
or a satisfactory

rea son g iven for its abse nce; (3) That the leg ality o f t he re straint has not alre ady been a djudge d upon a prior proce edingof the same c hara cter , to the best of the a pplicant’s knowledg e and be lief; and (4) That it is the first application for the writ, or, if a previous a pplication has bee n made, a copy of the pe tition and proce edings there on shall be produc ed, or satisfac tory

rea sons be g iven for the failure so to do. Additionally , “the a

pplication should be made to the c ourt or judg e most co n v en i en t in point of distance to the applicant, unless a suff icient re ason be g iven in the petition for not applying to suc h
c ourt or jud g e .” T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 5; se e als o D av is v . S tate , 261 S.W .3d 16, 20, (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J an. 31 , 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 30, 2008). A ha beas c orpus cour

t “prope rly may choose to summarily

dismiss a pet i t i on for f

ailing to c omply

with the statutory proce dural re quirements.” Su mm e rs , 2 12 S.W. 3d a t 26 0; see also Hick

man , 153 S.W .3d at 21.

Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 29-21-101 state s: “Any person imprisoned or

restra ined of lib e rt y , und e r any pr e te ns e wh a tso e ve r, e xce pt i n c a se s sp e c if ie d in § 2 9- 21 -1 02 , ma

y pr os e c ute a wr it of h ab ea s co rpus, t o inquire into the ca use of suc h imprisonment and restra int.” T.C.A. § 29 -2 1- 10 1. Th e wr it o f ha be a s cor pu s “ma y be g ra nte d by any jud g e of

the c ir c uit

or c ri min a l c ourt s, or by any chanc ellor in ca ses of equitable cognizance .” T.C.A. § 29-21- 103 (empha sis added).

I n the context of i t s d i s cussion of the c oncurr ent jurisdiction of the circ uit and chanc ery courts, the tre atise Gibson’s Suits in Chance ry addre sses this lim itation on the authority

of the chanc ery court: “Chanc ery Court ha s no jurisdiction of criminal matters, and a

Chance llor may

not gr ant the wr it to enquire into the restra i n t of prisoners or

the validity

of a c riminal conviction. The limiting wor ds ‘i n ca s es of equitable c og nizance’ r efe r to restra ints not crimina l l y i m p osed or sa nctioned.” Gi bs on ’s Sui ts i n Ch anc e ry , § 1. 08 , fn. 43 (8 th ed . 2 00 4) . T hu s, the c ha nc e ry c ourt s have jur isd ic tio n o ve r e qu ita ble matte rs but la c k ju

ri sd ic tio n o ve r c ri min a l matte rs

. See id. Robert Roysde n v. Glen Turner, W arden , No. W 2007-01144-COA- R3-CV, 2007 WL 4404102, at *2 (T e nn

. Ct. Ap p. , a t Jac ks on , De c

. 18 , 2 00 7) ; se e als o Anthony De an v. Glen Turner, W arden , No. W2007-00744-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL4404112, at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App., at J ackson, D ec. 18, 2007)

. I n this case, Petitioner filed a petition for a wr it of habea s corpus in the Chanc ery Court of Davidson County , Tenne ssee. Clea rly , he aske d the habe as cor pus court to inquire a

nd consider-5-

the validity

of a c riminal convicti o n , a m at t er outside the jur isdiction of the Chance ry Court of Davidson County . There fore , we a ffirm the dismissal of the pe tition for habea s corpus re lief.
Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the c hance ry court is af

firmed.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE