### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

LAR RY McK AY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 3662 Seth W. Norm an, Jud ge

No. M2005- 02141-CCA -R3-C O - F iled Fe bruary 7, 2006

This matter is befor e the Court upon the State’s motion to aff irm the judgme nt of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The pe titioner ha s a pp e a le d th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r sum mari ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ion fo r the writ o f h abe a s c or pu s. I n th a t pe tit ion , th e pe tit ion e r a rg ue s th a t hi s in dic tme nts we re vo id be c a us e the app lic able statut e under which he was indicted di d not “def ine t he use of a deadly

wea pon as an e lement of fir st deg ree murder.” Upon a r eview of the re cord in this case we are persuade d that the trial court was cor rec t in summarily

dismiss ing the habea s corpus p et i t i o n and that thi s case meets the c riteria f or aff irmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. Acc ording ly , the State’s motion is g rante d and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Affir m e d P ur sua nt

to Rul e 20 of t he Te nne sse e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J

. , d el i vere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

L arry McKa y , Nashville, Tenne ssee, pro s e

.

Paul G. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral and Reporte r; C. Daniel Lins, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Victor S. (Torry ) Johns on I I I , Dis t ri ct Att orney Gene ral, Da n Hamm, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On or a bout November

3, 1982, the petit ioner and a co-defe ndant were convicted of murder in the perpe t ration of a

rmed robbe ry

and sente nced to de ath. The pe titioner’s conviction and
sentenc e we re affirme d on direc t appea l. See State v. McKay , 680 S.W .2d 447, 453 (Tenn. 1984)

. Since that time, t h e p et i t i o n er ha s filed at lea st four petitions for post-convic tion relief. See , e.g ., Mic ha e l E ug e ne Sa mpl e v. Sta te , N o. W19 99 -0 12 02 -C CA -R 3- PC, 20 01 WL 43 38 1 (T e nn . Crim. App., at Jackson, J an. 17, 2001), pe rm. app. g rante d (Tenn. 2001) , perm. a pp. denied ( Tenn. 2001); Michae l E. Sample v. State, No. 02C01-9505-CR-000131, 1996 WL 551754 (Tenn. Crim. App., at-2-

J ackson, Sept. 30, 1996), pe rm. app. denied (Tenn. 1997); Michae l E

. Sample v. State, No. 02C01- 9104-CR-00062, 1995 WL 66563 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Fe b. 15, 1995), p er m

. app. denied ( Tenn. 1997); L arry McKa y v. State, No. 25, 1989 WL 17507 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Mar. 1, 1989) , perm. a

pp. denied ( Tenn. 1989), pe t. to rehea r g rante d (Tenn. 1989)

.

On J une 16, 2005, the pe titioner filed a pr o se petition for writ of habea s corpus a sserting that his indictments wer e void beca use t he applicable st atute under which he w as indicted did not “de fine the use of a deadly wea

pon as an element of first deg ree murder.” On J une 27, 2005, the trial court dismiss ed the pe tition, findi ng that the petit ioner failed t o show that the i ndictments wer e void or that he wa s convicted on the alleg edly void indictments. T h e trial court also dec ided to dismiss the petition because the petitioner fa iled to attach a copy of the underlying judgme nt to the petition or provide a satisfac tory

rea son for its absenc e as r equire d by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 2 9

- 2 1- 107(b)( 2). On July7, 2005, the petitioner filed a motion to alt er or

amend the judg ment pursuant to Rule 59.04 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedur e. The trial court denied the motion to alter

or ame nd and the pe titioner appea led.

On appe al, the petitioner a sserts that the trial court err ed in dismissi ng his petition wit hout allowing him to amend the petition withi n fiftee n day s under Rule 15.01 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedur e. Th e p etitioner also conte nds that the trial court erre d in dismi ssing the pe tition without r equiring the State to f ile an answe r. Specifica lly , he ar g ues that bec ause the State did not file an a nswer, the trial court e rre d by not acc epting all alleg ations in the petition as true. The p et i t i o n eral s o co m p l ai n s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt er r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e p et i t i o n wi t h o u ta h ea ri n g. L astly , the petitioner c ontends that the t rial court err ed in deny ing the motion to alter or amend the judgme nt pursuant to Rule 59.04 of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil P roce dure.

The de te r mi n a ti o n o f w h e th e r to g r a n t h ab e a s c o rp u s r e li e f is a q u e s ti o n o f la w . See M cLan eyv

. Be l l
, 5 9 S

. W

. 3 d 9 0
, 9 2 (T en n

. 2 0 0 1 ). As s u ch
, we wi l l re v i ew t h e t ri al co u rt ’s fi n d i n gs de no vo wi tho ut a

pr e su mpt ion of

c or re c tne ss. I d. Mo re ov e r, it is th e pet iti on e r’ s b ur de n to demonstrate, by

a pre pondera nce of

the evidence, “that the sentenc e is void or that the conf inement is ill eg al.” Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

.

Article I
, § 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es an a ccuse d the rig ht to seek habe as

c or pu s r e lie f. Se e Tay lor

v. Sta te , 9 95 S.W. 2d78 , 8 3 ( Te nn . 1 99 9) . A writ o f hab e a s c or pu s is available only

when it appea

rs on the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord tha t the convicting court wa s without jurisdiction t o convict or se ntence the def endant or t hat the def

endant is still im prisoned despite the expiration of his se ntence

. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993); Potts v. Sta te , 8 33 S.W. 2d60 , 6 2 ( Te nn . 199 2). I n ot he r w or ds , h abe a s c or pu s r e lie f m a y

be so ug ht o nly when the judg ment is void, not m ere ly voidable. See T ay lor, 995 S.W .2d at 83. “A void judgment ‘i s o ne in w hic h th e jud g me nt i s f a c ia lly inv a lidbe c a us e thec ou rt la c ke d ju risd iction o r a

uth or ity to rende r the judgme nt or beca use the defe ndant’s sentenc e has expired.’ We have r ecog nized that
a sente nce imposed in dire ct contra vention of a statute, f or example, is void and il leg al.” Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Tay lor, 955 S.W .2d at 83).-3-

Howeve r, if af

ter a revie w of the habe as petitioner’ s filings the tria l court dete rmines that the petitioner would not be e ntitled to relief
, then the petition may

be summarily

dismiss ed. Te nn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109; State ex re l. B yrd v. Boma r, 381 S.W .2d 280 (Tenn. 1964) . Further, a trial court may summarily dismiss a petition f or writ of habea s corpus without the appointment of a la wy er a nd without a n evidentiary hearing if there is nothing on the fac e of the judgme nt to in d i ca t e t h at the convic t i o n s addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), superc eded by statute as stated in State v. Steven S. Newma n, No. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).

Th e pr oc e du ra

l r e qu ir e me nt s fo r hab eas c orp us rel ief are m and ato ry

and mu st be s cru pu lou sly followed. Hic kman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 15, 19-20 (Tenn. 2004); Arc her, 851 S.W .2d at 165. The formal r equire ments for a n application or pe tition for writ of habe as corpus are found at Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107:

(a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, sig ned by either the party for whose be nefit it is intended, or some per son on the petitioner’s behalf , and verified by a ff ida vit

. (b) The petition shall state: (1) That the person in whose behalf the writ is soug ht, i s i l leg ally restra ined of liberty , and the pe rson by

whom and plac e whe re r estraine d, mentioning the name of such per son, i f known, and if unknow n, describing the pe rson with as much pa rt ic ula ri ty a s p ra c tic able ; (2) The cause or pre tense of s u ch restraint ac cording to the best information of the applicant, a nd if it be by virtue of any leg al proce ss, a copy there of shall be anne x ed,

or a sa tis fa c tory

re a so n g ive n f

or its abs e nc e ; (3) That the leg ality

of the re st ra i n t has not alrea dy been a djudge d upon a prior proce eding of the same char acte r, to the best of the applicant’ s knowledg e and be lief; and (4) That it is the first application for the writ, or, i f a pr evious applica tion has been made, a copy of t he petiti on and procee dings there shall be produced, or satisfactory

rea sons should be g iven for the failure to do so.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-107. “A habea s corpus court may proper ly choose to dismiss a petition for f ailing to c omply

with the statutory proce dural require ments

. . . .” Hickma n, 153 S.W .3d at 21.

Fir s t, w e n o te th a t th e p e ti ti o n e r h e r e in f a il e d to a d h e r e to th e man d a to r y r e q u ir e me n ts for ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion s un der Ten ne sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 2 9- 21 -1 07 (b )( 2) by faili ng to inc lud e a c op y of the jud g me nt. Th e pe tit ion e r’ s f a ilu re to c omp ly

wi th the ma nd a tory

re qu ir e me nts for ha beas c orpus petitions alone provided adequate j ustification for the trial court’ s dismis sal of the petition. Further , the trial court did not have to require the State to answe r the pe tition prior to the dismiss al. As stated pr eviously , a tr i al court may proper ly dismiss a petition for writ of habea s corpus without a hearing, and pre sumably prior to any

answe r fr om the State, when the pe tition does not demonstrate that a

judgme nt is void. Di x o n v

. Ho l l and, 70 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tenn. 2002).-4-

Moreove r, the trial c ourt was not re quired to allow the pe titioner to amen d h i s p eti tion under Tenne ssee Rule of Civil Procedur e 15.01. The Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedur e do not g ener al

app ly to c ri min a l c a se s. Se e Al le y v. Sta te , 8 82 S.W. 2d81 0, 81 6 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ). B e c a us e the petitioner has failed to pr operly demonstrate that he is e ntitled to habea s corpus re lief, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls p ro vid e s in te r a lia :

The Court, with the conc urre nce of all judge s participating in the case , when an opinion would have no prec edential value, may aff irm the judg ment or ac tion of the trial court by

memorandum opinion rathe r than by formal opinion, when:

The judg ment is render ed or the action taken in a proce eding befor e the tr ia l ju dg e wi tho ut a

jury , an d s uc h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a de te rm inatio n o f g uil t, andthe e vid e nc e do e s n o t p r e p o n d e r at e a g a ins t the finding of the trial judg e . . . .

We determine tha t this case mee ts the criteria of the a bove-qu o t ed ru le and, ther efor e, we g rant the State’ s motion filed under Rule 20 and we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

_________________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE