IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

ANTHONY WASHINGTON v. JAMES HOLLOWAY, WARDEN

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County

No. 6789 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2014-02080-CCA-R3-HC - Filed April 20, 2015

The petitioner, Anthony Washington, appeals the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County’s

denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion

requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules

of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALAN E. GLENN

and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Anthony Washington, Henning, Tennessee, pro se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; and Clarence E. Lutz, Senior Counsel,

for the appellee, James Holloway, Warden.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 1995, the petitioner pleaded guilty to first degree felony murder, theft, four counts

of aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. He received an

effective life sentence.

The petitioner since has filed multiple habeas corpus petitions, one of which alleged

that hisfelony murder conviction was void because the word “robbery” had been handwritten

on his indictment. Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, this

court affirmed the judgment of the habeas corpus court summarily dismissing the petition.
See Anthony L. Washington v. State, No. M2004-00982-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 49606, at

*1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 5, 2005).

In August 2012, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that

his indictment for felony murder was fatally defective because it failed to include all the

essential elements of the offense charged. The habeas corpus court denied relief. On appeal,

this court noted that we had previously held that the petitioner’s indictment was not defective

and that this court’s prior decision was binding under the law of the case doctrine. See

Anthony L. Washington v. Dwight Barbee, Warden, No. W2012-01888-CCA-R3-HC, 2013

WL 2150675, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 16, 2013). As a result, this court affirmed the

habeas corpus court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition.

On September 23, 2014, the petitioner filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus,

again alleging that his indictment for felony murder was fatally defective. On September 25,

the habeas corpus court entered an order denying the petitioner’s petition. On October 3, the

habeas corpus court entered an order denying the petitioner’s amended petition. This appeal

followed.

This is the third habeas corpus petition in which the petitioner alleges that his

indictment is so defective on its face that it failed to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court.

This court has rejected the petitioner’s claims on two other occasions. See Anthony L.

Washington, 2013 WL 2150675, at *1; Anthony L. Washington, 2005 WL 49606, at *1. As

we have previously noted, pursuant to the “law of the case” doctrine, “an appellate court is

generally without authority to reconsider issues that have been decided in a prior appeal;

‘issues previously litigated and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction ordinarily need

not be revisited.’” Anthony L. Washington, 2013 WL 2150675, at *1 (quoting State v.

Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tenn. 2000)). The law of the case doctrine generally serves

to “promote[ ] the finality and efficiency of the judicial process, avoid[ ] indefinite

relitigation of the same issue, foster[ ] consistent results in the same litigation, and assure

[ ] the obedience of lower courts to the decisions of appellate courts.” Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d

at 561.

While the petitioner seeks to present a new theory under which his indictment should

be deemed fatally defective, his claim is the same: that his felony murder indictment was so

defective on its face that it failed to confer jurisdiction on the trial court, thus rendering his

conviction void. This court’s prior decision on the matter is binding and disposes of the

petitioner’s claim for relief.

When an opinion would have no precedential value, the Court of Criminal Appeals

may affirm the judgment or action of the trial court by memorandum opinion when the

-2-
judgment is rendered or the action taken in a proceeding without a jury and such judgment

or action is not a determination of guilt, and the evidence does not preponderate against the

finding of the trial judge. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. We conclude that this case

satisfies the criteria of Rule 20. 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.

_________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

-3-