IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs March 22, 2016 

JAMES THOMAS v. RANDY LEE, WARDEN

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Johnson County

No. CC-15-CR-151 Stacy L. Street, Judge

No. E2015-02427-CCA-R3-HC – Filed July 21, 2016

The Petitioner, James Thomas, filed a petition in the Johnson County Criminal Court 

seeking habeas corpus relief from his aggravated assault conviction, alleging that his 

conviction was void because the affidavit of complaint attached to his arrest warrant was 

not signed. The habeas corpus court denied relief without a hearing, and the Petitioner 

appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. 

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

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT 

WILLIAMS and TIMOTHY L. EASTER,JJ., joined.

James Thomas, Mountain City, Tennessee, Pro se. 

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Lacy Wilber, Senior Counsel; and 

Anthony Wade Clark, District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. Factual Background

A jury in the Johnson County Criminal Court convicted the Petitioner of 

aggravated assault, a Class C felony. State v. James Craig Thomas, No. E2013-02196-

CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2021952, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, May 15, 2014). 

The trial court sentenced the Petitioner as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years. 

Id. 
- 2 -

Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, citing State v. 

Ferrante, 269 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. 2008), in support of his contention that the affidavit of 

complaint underlying his arrest warrant was not signed by a neutral and detached 

magistrate or judge; therefore, the arrest warrant was void ab initio and invalidated all 

subsequent proceedings. In response, the State filed a motion to dismiss, maintaining that 

the affidavit of complaint was not the charging document because the Johnson County 

Grand Jury returned an indictment against the Petitioner. The State contended, therefore, 

that the Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief. 

The habeas corpus court summarily granted the State‟s motion to dismiss, ruling 

that the Petitioner‟s “argument that he [was] entitled to habeas corpus relief due to a void 

affidavit of complaint [was] without merit” because a grand jury issued a valid 

indictment against him on July 8, 2011. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the 

habeas corpus court erred by denying relief without a hearing. 

II. Analysis

Initially, we note that the determination of whether to grant habeas corpus relief is 

a question of law. Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007). As such, we 

will review the trial court‟s findings de novo without a presumption of correctness. Id.

Moreover, it is the petitioner‟s burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, “that the sentence is void or that the confinement is illegal.” Wyatt v. State, 24 

S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000).

Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantees an accused the right 

to seek habeas corpus relief. See Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). 

However, “[s]uch relief is available only when it appears from the face of the judgment 

or the record of the proceedings that a trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence a 

defendant or that a defendant‟s sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired.” 

Wyatt, 24 S.W.3d at 322; see also Tenn. Code Ann. ' 29-21-101. In other words, habeas 

corpus relief may be sought only when the judgment is void, not merely voidable.

Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83. “A void judgment „is one in which the judgment is facially 

invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment or 

because the defendant‟s sentence has expired.‟ We have recognized that a sentence 

imposed in direct contravention of a statute, for example, is void and illegal.” 

Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 

83). 

The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by denying his petition 

without a hearing. The State contends that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed 

the petition without a hearing. 
- 3 -

The Petitioner‟s reliance on Ferrante is misguided. In Ferrante, an indictment 

charging the defendant was never issued. 269 S.W.3d at 909. The only charging 

instrument issued prior to the expiration of the statute of limitation was the invalid 

affidavit of complaint. Id. at 914-15. In the instant case, the Petitioner was charged with 

and convicted of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. Tenn. Code Ann. ' 39-13-

102(a)(1)(A)(iii); (e)(1)(A)(ii). Prosecution for a Class C felony must be commenced 

within four years of the offense. Tenn. Code Ann. ' 40-2-101(b)(3). The Petitioner‟s 

offenses were committed on May 3, 2011, and a grand jury returned an indictment on 

July 8, 2011, well within the statute of limitation.

1

 Thus, the charging instrument is the 

indictment. Eric D. Wallace v. Stephen Dotson, Warden, No. W2006-00908-CCA-R3-

HC, 2007 WL 852173, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Mar. 22, 2007). A valid 

indictment confers jurisdiction on a trial court. Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 

2000). Accordingly, the habeas corpus court did not err by denying relief. 

III. Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. 

_________________________________ 

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE

 

1 We take judicial notice of the indictment, which was part of the direct appeal record. See State v. 

Lawson, 291 S.W.3d 864, 869 (Tenn. 2009).