IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 14, 2007

CLAUDE SHARKEY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, CHERRY

LINDAMOOD, WARDEN

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County

No. 14124 Stella Hargrove, Judge

No. M2007-00709-CCA-R3-HC - Filed March 20, 2008

The petitioner, Claude Sharkey, pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas

corpus relief. He claims that his indictments were deficient and that his sentences were improper.

After review, we conclude his judgments are facially valid with no jurisdictional defect or illegal

sentences. The summary dismissal is affirmed. 

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

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES and

JERRY L. SMITH, JJ., joined.

Claude Sharkey, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Mark A. Fulks, Senior Counsel; and T.

Michel Bottoms, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. 

OPINION

The judgments attached in this appeal reveal that the petitioner pled guilty to first degree

murder, especially aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and that he

received an agreed to sentence of life plus twenty-five years in 1996. On or about January 4, 2007,

he filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the judgments against him were void

because the indictments were improper. The State’s motion to dismiss was granted after arguing that

the petitioner did not raise the challenge to the indictments prior to trial and that his argument was

waived by virtue of the guilty plea.

A habeas corpus petition may be used to challenge judgments that are void and not merely

voidable. Stephenson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000)(citing Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d

78, 83 (Tenn. 1999); Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)). A void judgment is one

in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render
-2-

the judgment. Id. On the other hand, a voidable judgment is one that is facially valid and requires

proof beyond the face of the record or judgment to establish its invalidity. Taylor v. State, 995

S.W.2d at 83. The petitioner has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that

his judgment is void.

The trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief when the

petitioner does not state a cognizable claim. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 1994). A petition for writ of habeas corpus may only be brought if the judgment is void or the

sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d at 164.

The petitioner’s claim that the indictments were deficient should have been raised prior to

trial. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b). A review of the indictments reveals that citations for the statutes

violated were contained in the indictments, rendering them sufficient to support a conviction. See

State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145, 149 (Tenn. 1999). 

The sentences imposed were specifically authorized and lawful. No defect facially exists.

Conclusion

The petition for writ of habeas corpus was correctly dismissed. The judgment is affirmed.

___________________________________ 

 JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE