IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs June 4, 2013

LEON MORRIS v. HENRY STEWARD, WARDEN

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

No. 13-CR-9815 R. Lee Moore, Jr., Judge

No. W2013-00397-CCA-R3-HC - Filed June 13, 2013

The petitioner, Leon Morris, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of

habeas corpus. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS T.

WOODALL and JEFFREY S. BIVINS, JJ., joined.

Leon Morris, Tiptonville, Tennessee, pro se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; John H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On January 11, 2013, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

challenging the requirement that he register as a sexual offender and otherwise comply with

the Sexual Offender Registry provisionsfor a conviction that occurred on February 25, 1980.

The petitioner claimed that forcing him to register as a sexual offender and comply with other

registry requirements when he had not previously been required to do so violated his

constitutional protection against ex post facto legislation. The habeas corpus court

summarily dismissed the petition on grounds that the petitioner had failed to comply with the

procedural requirements for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, specifically failing to

attach to his petition the judgment for his conviction.

“The determination of whether habeas corpus relief should be granted is a

question of law.” Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hart v. State,
21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)). Our review of the habeas corpus court’s decision is,

therefore, “de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded to the [habeas corpus]

court.” Id. (citing Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 205 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tenn.

2006)).

The writ of habeas corpus is constitutionally guaranteed, see U.S. Const. art.

1, § 9, cl. 2; Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15, but has been regulated by statute for more than a

century,see Ussery v. Avery, 432 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Tenn. 1968). Tennessee Code Annotated

section 29-21-101 provides that “[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any

pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in § 29-21-102, may prosecute a writ of

habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint.” T.C.A. §

29-21-101 (2006). Despite the broad wording of the statute, a writ of habeas corpus may be

granted only when the petitioner has established a lack of jurisdiction for the order of

confinement or that he is otherwise entitled to immediate release because of the expiration

of his sentence. See Ussery, 432 S.W.2d at 658; State v. Galloway, 45 Tenn. (5 Cold.) 326

(1868). The purpose of the state habeas corpus petition is to contest a void, not merely a

voidable, judgment. State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (Tenn. 1968).

A void conviction is one which strikes at the jurisdictional integrity of the trial court. Archer

v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993); see State ex rel. Anglin v. Mitchell, 575 S.W.2d

284, 287 (Tenn. 1979); Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

In addition to the various procedural requirements for the prosecution of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus contained in the Code, see generally T.C.A. §§ 29-21-105

to -112, our supreme court has held that “[t]he petitioner bears the burden of providing an

adequate record for summary review of the habeas corpus petition.” Summers v. State, 212

S.W.3d 251, 261 (Tenn. 2007). “[A]n adequate record for summary review must include

pertinent documents to support those factual assertions” contained in the petition. Id. When

a petitioner fails to attach to his petition sufficient documentation supporting his claims, the

habeas corpus court may summarily dismiss the petition. Id.

Here, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Code section 29-

21-107 by failing to attach to his petition a copy of the judgment for the challenged

conviction or to account for its absence. See T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2) (“The cause or

pretense of such restraint according to the best information of the applicant, and if it be by

virtue of any legal process, a copy thereof shall be annexed, or a satisfactory reason given for

its absence.”). On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he has complied with the procedural

requirements “to the best of his abilities” by attaching his Tennessee Offender Management

Information System (“TOMIS”) reports. To satisfy the procedural requirements for habeas

corpus relief and to avert a summary dismissal, however, the petitioner must make the

showing of entitlement to habeas corpus relief “with pertinent documents from the record of

-2-
the underlying proceedings.” Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 262. Because TOMIS reports are

generated by the Department of Correction following an inmate’s transfer to prison, they

would not be considered a part of the record of the underlying proceedings. In consequence,

a TOMIS report cannot be used to satisfy the procedural requirements for filing a petition for

writ of habeas corpus. Given the petitioner’s procedural failings, summary dismissal of the

petition was appropriate.

Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

_________________________________

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-3-