FILED

September 10, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

AUGUST SESSION, 1998

JACKIE R. ROBINSON, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9711-CR-00525

)

Appellant, )

 ) DAVIDSON COUNTY

V. ) 

)

) HON. CHERYL BLACKBURN, 

MICHAEL DUTTON, Warden, ) JUDGE

and STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) 

)

Appellee. ) (HABEAS CORPUS)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

JACKIE R. ROBINSON, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP 

RMSI Unit 6 Attorney General & Reporter

7475 Cockrill Bend

Industrial Road ELIZABETH B. MARNEY

Nashville, TN 37209-1010 Assistant Attorney General

2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building

425 Fifth Avenue North 

Nashville, TN 37243

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED 

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-

OPINION

The Petitioner, Jackie Robinson, appeals as of right the trial court’s dismissal

of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus on March 13, 1995. Petitioner

claims that the Tennessee Board of Paroles violated his rights to due process and

equal protection in violation of the fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments to the

United States Constitution. Specifically, Petitioner claims that the Board refused to

grant him due process during his most recent parole hearing by not giving him a

continuance and by not providing him with counsel. He states that the Board’s

“actions and inactions” denied him his “rights of earned good-time credits and other

credits earned by the petitioner during his twenty-one (21) years of incarceration in

the TDOC.” He claims that the Board’s actions forced him to lose his trustee status

and affected his release eligibility date.

It is a well-established principle of law that the remedy of habeas corpus is

limited in its nature and its scope. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 161-62 (Tenn.

1993); Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). In

Tennessee, habeas corpus relief is available only if “‘it 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 defendant’s sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired.” Archer,

851 S.W.2d at 164 (citation omitted in original). The petitioner has the burden of

establishing either a void judgment or an illegal confinement by a preponderance of

the evidence. Passarella, 891 S.W.2d at 627. Moreover, where a judgment is not
-3-

void, but is merely voidable, such judgment may not be collaterally attacked in a suit

for habeas corpus relief. Id. 

The claims presented by Petitioner are not cognizable under the habeas

corpus statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 - 130. Petitioner does not allege

in his petition that he is being illegally confined or that the judgment in his case was

void. This Court has held that if it is clear from the face of the petition that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief, then the trial court is not required to hold a hearing

or inquire into the allegations in the petition, but may dismiss the petition summarily.

Passarella, 891 S.W.2d at 627. We agree with the trial court’s dismissal of

Petitioner’s petition.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

____________________________________

THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

___________________________________

L.T. LAFFERTY, Special Judge