1

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

PATRICK STEWART v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County

No. 5967 Joe H. Walker, Judge

No. W2005-01843-CCA-R3-HC - Filed November 17, 2005

The Petitioner, Patrick Stewart, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas

corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant

to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground

that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s

dismissal.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the

Court of Criminal Appeals

ALAN E. GLENN,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID G. HAYES AND J.C. MCLIN,

JJ. joined.

Patrick Stewart, pro se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for

the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 15, 1991, Petitioner Patrick Stewart entered guilty pleas to one count of first degree

murder and one count of aggravated rape. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of life
2

imprisonment and fifteen years for the respective convictions. The Petitioner is currently confined

at West Tennessee State Penitentiary in Henning, Tennessee.

On May 30, 2005, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief in the

Lauderdale County Circuit Court. As grounds for issuance of the writ, the Petitioner claimed that

his sentence is void because the trial court failed to comply with the Rule 11, Tennessee Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Thus, he asserts the trial court was “not in possession to accept a guilty plea

from a defendant without first complying with the law himself, which removes his jurisdiction to

hear the plea, and makes any subsequent sentence illegal and void.” The trial court considered the

petition and, by order entered June 30, 2005, denied relief. In its order denying issuance of the writ,

the trial court noted that the Petitioner had failed to attach a copy of the judgment to his petition.

The court further found that the Petitioner’s sentences had not expired and that the “Criminal Court

has jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant to the sentence he received.” The trial court

concluded that “[h]abeas corpus relief was not appropriate.” The trial court further determined that,

if the petition was considered as one seeking post-conviction relief, the petition was time-barred.

A notice of appeal document was timely filed on July 29, 2005.

The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the lower court’s denial of

habeas corpus relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. As

basis for its motion, the State asserts that the Petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for habeas

corpus relief. Additionally, the State contends that the Petitioner failed to comply with the

procedural requirements for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner has filed a response in opposition

to the State’s motion. In his response, the Petitioner attaches copies of his judgments of conviction.

We initially note, as properly argued by the State, that the Petitioner failed to attach copies

of the judgments of conviction to his petition for habeas corpus relief filed in the trial court. See

T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2). The procedural requirements for habeas corpus relief are mandatory and

must be scrupulously followed. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993). An application

for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus may be summarily dismissed for the failure to attach

the judgment forms. T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2). The Petitioner’s attempt to rectify the deficiency

in his initial application comes too late.

The State is correct that summary dismissal was appropriate based solely on the Petitioner’s

failure to attach copies of the judgment forms. Notwithstanding this fact and the fact that the trial

court mentioned this omission in itsfindings, the trial court dismissed the petition for failing to state

a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. This Court, being appellate only, is bound by the

decision of the habeas court. Thus, the only question currently before this Court is whether the

record supports the lower court's dismissal.

In this state, habeas corpus relief only addresses detentions that result from void judgments

or expired sentences. See Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 164. A judgment is void “only when ‘[i]t appears

upon the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered’

that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a
3

defendant’s sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired.” Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d

16, 20 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted)).

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

a preponderance of the evidence. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1994). If the petitioner carries this burden, he is entitled to immediate relief. However, where the

allegations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial

court may correctly dismiss the petition without a hearing. McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90, 93

(Tenn. 2001) (citing T.C.A. § 29-21-109 (2000);see, e.g., Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 164 (parenthetical

omitted)). In the present case, the Petitioner does not contend that his sentences have expired, thus,

he is only entitled to relief if his judgments are void.

The trial court found that the petition failed to allege any ground demonstrating that the

judgment was void. We agree; his claim that the trial court failed to complywith Rule 11, Tennessee

Rules of Criminal Procedure is an allegation that would render a conviction voidable, not void.

Accord Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 163. Upon our review of the record in this case, we conclude that the

trial court properly determined that the Petitioner's claim is not cognizable in a habeas corpus

proceeding.

Section 40-30-105, Tennessee Code Annotated, instructs trial courts to treat habeas petitions

as post-conviction petitions "when the relief and procedure authorized by [the Post-Conviction

Procedure Act] appear adequate and appropriate." The trial court treated the petition as both an

application for habeas corpus relief and as a petition for post-conviction relief. Treating the

application as one for post-conviction relief, the trial court found the application time-barred as it

was filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102(a) (petition must be

filed within one year of the date of the final action of highest court to which appeal taken or one year

of date on which judgment became final if no appeal taken). Additionally, no ground exists as an

exception to the statute of limitations. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102(b). Accordingly, we conclude that

the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition as one seeking post-conviction relief.

We conclude that the trial court properly denied habeas corpus relief as the petition failed to

allege a ground that would render the judgments void. Additionally, the trial court properly

determined that the petition was time-barred if treated as a petition for post-conviction relief.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the State's motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is

affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

___________________________________ 

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE