IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

MICHELLE SHOEMAKER v. STANLEY DICKERSON, Warden

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County

No. 7233 Blake Neill, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2022-00620-CCA-R3-HC

___________________________________

The Petitioner, Michelle Shoemaker, is appealing the trial court’s summary dismissal of 

her habeas corpus petition. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, 

the court finds that this is an appropriate matter for affirmance under Court of Criminal 

Appeals Rule 20.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Order of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant 

to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JOHN W.

CAMPBELL, SR., and KYLE A. HIXSON, JJ. joined.

Michelle Shoemaker, Henning, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; T. Austin Watkins, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Petitioner is currently serving a life sentence for the first-degree murder of her 

stepfather. State v. Michelle Shoemaker, No. M2005-02652-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL

3095446, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 2, 2006), perm. app. denied (March 

12, 2007). This court affirmed the judgments on appeal. Id. The Petitioner filed 

unsuccessful petitions for post-conviction relief, Michelle Shoemaker v. State, No. M2009-

00472-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 1462527, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, April 13, 

2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010), and for writ of error coram nobis. 

Michelle Shoemaker v. State, No. M2016-001146-CCA-R3-ECN, 2017 WL 2570821, at 

*1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June 14, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 21, 

2017). 

12/20/2022
2

On April 12, 2022, the Petitioner filed, pro se, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

arguing that her judgment is void because the conviction is for a non-existent offense. The 

Petitioner’s indictment and criminal judgment form indicate that the offense for which the 

Petitioner was charged and convicted is criminal responsibility for first-degree murder. On 

April 22, 2022, the habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, finding that the judgment 

was not void because it included the State’s theory of liability – criminal responsibility. 

While habeas corpus is a proper vehicle for seeking review of whether an 

indictment is fatally defective, thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction, Dykes v. 

Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998), so long as the indictment performs its 

essential constitutional and statutory purposes, habeas corpus relief is not warranted. Id. 

An indictment passes constitutional muster if it provides: (1) notice of the charge against 

which the accused must defend himself; (2) an adequate basis for the entry of a proper 

judgment; and (3) protection of the accused from double jeopardy. State v. Hill, 954 

S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 1997). In addition, an indictment must “state the facts constituting 

the offense in ordinary and concise language, without prolixity or repetition, in such a 

manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with 

that degree of certainty which will enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the 

judgment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-202. Upon reviewing the record and the pleadings 

in this case, we conclude that more information (i.e., the theory under which the State will 

proceed at trial) than that which is required does not cause an indictment to be “fatally 

defective. Therefore, we find that it is an appropriate matter for affirmance under Rule 20.

The Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provide this Court to issue a 

memorandum opinion, with no precedential value, affirming the trial court in cases where:

(1)(a) The judgment is rendered or the action is taken in a proceeding before 

the trial judge 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, . . . and

(2) No error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment or action is apparent 

on the record.

As is the case herein, the order of the trial court dismissing the Petitioner’s habeas 

corpus petition is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20.

________________________________

JUDGE ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER