IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs December 4, 2012

JEREMY TAYLOR v. DWIGHT BARBEE, WARDEN

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County

No. 6560 Joseph H. Walker, Judge

No. W2012-01007-CCA-R3-HC - Filed December 13, 2012

Jeremy Taylor (“the Petitioner”) entered a guilty plea to charges of aggravated rape,

aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The Petitioner

subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the speedy trial

provisions of the Interstate Detainer Act were violated as to the Petitioner. The habeas

corpus court dismissed his petition without a hearing, finding that the Petitioner’s claim did

not render the judgments against him void. The Petitioner now appeals. After a review of

the record and the applicable law, we dismiss the appeal.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

JEFFREY S. BIVINS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ, joined.

Jeremy Taylor, pro se, Henning, Tennessee, as the appellant.

Robert E. Cooper,Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; and David H. Findley, Senior Counsel,

for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On April 7, 2004, the Petitioner entered a guilty plea to charges of aggravated rape,

aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. As a part of the plea

agreement, the Petitioner agreed to an effective sentence of twenty years. On April 19, 2012,

the Petitioner filed the instant petition seeking habeas corpus relief contending that the State

had violated the speedy trial provisions of the Interstate Detainer Act in its prosecution of the

Petitioner’s case. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the Petition, finding that the

Petitioner had failed to establish a claim that would render his judgments void. The habeas
corpus court also noted that the Petitioner had failed to attach to his petition copies of the

judgments entered against him. The Petitioner timely appealed to this Court.

Analysis

On August 8, 2012, this Court issued an order requiring the Petitioner to file a brief

by September 12, 2012, or the Court would dismiss the Petitioner’s appeal. Instead of filing

a brief, the Petitioner filed a document requesting this Court to treat his petition as his brief.

Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a) provides the proper guidelines for

appellate briefs before this Court. Pursuant to thisrule, appellants must include the following

in their appellate briefs:

(1) A table of contents . . . ; (2) A table of authorities . . . ; (3) A jurisdictional

statement in cases appealed to the Supreme Court . . . ; (4) A statement of the

issues presented for review; (5) A statement of the case . . . ; (6) A statement

of facts . . . ; (7) An argument . . . ; [and] (8) A short conclusion.

Id.

 A review of the petition demonstrates that it clearly fails to satisfy the requirements

of Rule 27(a), even when we liberally construe those requirements for the Petitioner because

the Petitioner is proceeding pro se. Therefore, in accordance with the order previously

entered by this Court, we conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.

Moreover, even if we were to consider the appeal on the merits, we would affirm the

summary dismissal by the trial court. The Petitioner clearly failed to comply with the strict

procedural requirements for filing a meritorious petition for habeas corpus relief.

Additionally, the Petitioner’s claim regarding alleged violations of the speedy trial provisions

of the Interstate Detainer Act, at most, would render his convictions voidable, not void.

Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Petitioner’s appeal is hereby

dismissed.

_________________________________

JEFFREY S. BIVINS, JUDGE

-2-