### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs a t Ja ck son June 6, 200 6
JON D OUG LAS HA LL v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE/R ICKY BELL , WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-2887 Ham ilton Gayden, Jud ge

No. M2005- 00572-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Jul y 19, 2006

T h e p e t i t i o n e r , J o n D o u g l a s H a l l , ap p e a l s t h e d i s m i s s a l o f h i s p e t i t i o n f

o r h ab e a s c o rp u s r e l i e f

. In thi s a pp e a l, h e all eges th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d b y su mma ri ly dis mis sin g his pe tit ionwi tho ut a hearing and t hat t he judgment of conviction i s void because the trial c ourt lacke d jurisdiction. The judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J

. , delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Dw ig ht E . Sc ott , N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Jon D ou g la s H a ll.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; E liz abeth Ry an, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Vi c tor S. Joh ns on , I I I , D ist

ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, f

or theapp e lle e , St a te of Te nn e sse e /Ric ky B e ll, Warden.

OP IN ION

I n 1 99 7, the pe tit ione r w a s c on vic te d o f the fi rs t de g re e mur de r o f h is w if e , B ill ie Jo Ha ll,
a ndse nte nc e d to de a th. Th e pe tit ion e r' s c on vic tio n a ndse nte nc e we re a ff ir me d on ap pe a l. See Sta te
v. Ha ll, 8 S. W.3 d 5 93 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . O n Oc tob e r 10 , 2 00 3, the pe tit ion e r f ile d a pe tit ionfo r a

writ of habe as cor

pus relief alleg ing tha t b ec au s e he had not c onsented to the c hang e of ve nue fr om Hende rson t o M ad i s o n C o u nty , the trial court lacked jurisdiction to t ry the ca se. The trial court summarily

dismiss ed the pe tition.

I n 1 99 4, the pe tit ion e r w a s in dic te d inHe nd e rs on Cou nty fo r the fi rs t de g re e mur de r o f h is wife. I n J une of 1995, the petitioner filed his first motion for chang e of ve nue with the He nderson Countytrial court. The motion was denied in Nove mber of 1995. In September of 1996, the pet it io n e r a c q u ir e d n e w c o u n s e l, w h o f il e d a s e c o n d mo ti o n f

o r c h a n g e o f v e n u e

. A lthoug h the-2-

rec ord on appe al is sparse, the state appa rently consente d to the venue c hang e and the motion was g rante d. Se e Th omp so n v. Sta te , 95 8 S.W. 2d 15 6, 17 2 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ) (h old ing that it is the def endant' s duty

to prepa re a n adequate re cord on a ppeal) ; Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). The petitioner' s trial was transfer red to Madison County wher e he was convicted of f irst deg ree murder and sente nced to de ath.

I n thi s app e a l, the pe tit ion e r a sse rt s that the low e r c ou rt e rr e d b y su mma ri ly dis mis sin g his petition and that the judg ment is void be cause Hende rson County was the pr oper jurisdiction. The p e t i t i o n e r s p e c i f i c a l l y ar g u e s t h a th e d i d n o tc o n s e n tt o t h e c h a n g e o f v e n u e t o M a d i s o n C o u n t y.
The writ of habea s corpus is g uaranteed by Art i cl e 1 , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constit ution, which provides that " the privileg e of the writ of Ha beas Corpus shall not be suspended,
un le ss w he n in c a se of re be lli on or inv a sio n, the Ge ne ra l As se mbl y sh a ll d e c lare the pu bli c sa fe ty
re qu ir e s it ." Ten n. Co ns t. art . I , § 15 . A lth ou g h th e writ o f h abe a s c or pu s is c on sti tut ion a lly g u ar a n t e e d , i th a s b e e n r e g u l a t e d b y s t a t u t e f o r m o r e t h a n o n e h u n d r e d ye ar s

. S e e U s s e r y v

. A v e r y, 432 S.W .2d at 656, 657 (Te nn. 1968). Our curr ent code provides that "[a]ny person imprisoned or restra ined of liberty , under a ny prete nse whatsoeve r, except in c ases specifie d in § 29-21-102, may prosec ute a writ of habea s corpus, to inquire into the ca use of suc h imprisonment and restraint." Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-101 (2003)

. Al tho ug h th e la ng ua g e of the s tat ut e is b ro a d, the c ou rt s o f this state ha ve lon g he ld that a writ of habe as cor

pus may be g rante d only

when the pe titioner has established a lack of jurisdiction for the or d er o f co n fi nement or that he is otherwise e ntitled to im mediate r elea se bec ause of the
e xpir a tio n o f h is s e nte nc e . Se e Us se ry , 4 32 S.W. 2da t 65 8; s e e a lso State e x re l. Wa de v. No rv e ll, 44 3 S. W.2 d 8 39 , 8 40 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 69 ). Un lik e the fe de ra l w ri t of ha be a s c or pu s, re lie f i s avai l ab l e i n this state only when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re cord that the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction to convi ct o r s entenc e the pe titioner or that the sente nce of imprisonment has otherwise e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pott s v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . The proc edura l require ments for ha beas c orpus re lief ar e mandatory

and must be scr

upulouslyfollowed. Ar cher , 851 S.W .2d at 165. A t ri al court may summarily

dismiss a petition for writ of h ab ea s co rpus without the appointment of a la wy er a nd wit h o u t an ev i d entiary

hearing if

there is nothing on the fa ce of the judg ment to indicate that the convictions addre ssed there in a re void. Passare lla v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Unlike the post-c onviction petition, which would affor d a means of re lief for constitutional violations, such as the deprivation of the ef fec tive assistance of counse l, the purpose of the ha beas corpus pe tition i s to contest a void, not mere ly voidable, judg ment. State ex rel. Newsom v. Hende rson , 4 2 4 S. W. 2 d 1 8 6 , 1 8 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 6 8 )

. A v o id ju d g me n t " is f a c ia ll y in v a li d b e c a u s e the court lac ked jurisdiction or authority to r ender the judgme nt or bec ause the defe ndant' s sentence has expired" w here as a voi d a

b le ju d g ment "is fa cially

valid and re quires the introduc tion of proof be y ond the fa ce of

the re cord or

judgme nt to establish its invalidity ." T ay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (T en n

. 1 9 9 9 ). A p et i t i o n erca n n o tat t ac k a f ac i al l y v al i d co n v i ct i o n i n a h ab ea s co rp u s p ro ce ed i n g. Potts , 833 S.W .2d at 62; State ex rel. Holbrook v. B omar, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (Tenn. 1963).-3-

The policy behind l imiti ng habea s corpus relief to facially void convictions is "g rounded on the strong presumption of validity that attache s to final j udg ments of courts of g ener al jurisdiction." State v. Rit c h ie , 2 0 S. W. 3 d 6 2 4 , 6 3 0 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 0 )

. I n Ri tc h ie , o u r s u p r e me c o u r t r e it e r a te d the limit ed natur e of ha

beas c orpus re lief:

I n all case s where a petitioner must int roduce proof be y ond the re cord to establish the i nvalidity of hi s conviction, then that convic tion by definition is merely voidable, a n d a Tenne ssee c ourt ca nnot issue the writ of habe as corpus unde r such c ircumstance s. Unlike the proc edure s g overning the availa b i l i ty

of the fe dera l writ of habe as cor pus, our proc edure s do not contemplate that the p et i t i o ner may relitig ate f

acts in a ha

beas c orpus proce eding . Be cause a con v i ction is either void on its face for want of jurisdiction, or it is not , the nee d for a n evidentiary hearing in a

habea s corpus proce eding should rare ly

arise . . . .

I d. at 633 (e mphasis added)

. The pe ti tioner ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in dismissi ng his habea s corpus pe tition "w ithout a full and fair hearing." As explained by our hi g h court in Russell v. Wil lis, 437 S .W.2d 529, 531 (Tenn. 1969) , howeve r, " [a] full evidentiary hearing may not be re quired for every petition fo r the writ. Un le ss f

a c ts s uf fi c ie nt t o est abli sh the vo id ch ara c te r of the pr oc e e din g s whi c h ledto imprisonment are a lleg ed, an e videntiary hearing is not wa

rra nted."

As ind ic a te d, the pe tit ion e r a sse rt s th a t he is e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f b e c a us e " he did not ag ree to a cha ng e of ve nue and the venue c hang e wa s contrary to established law a nd proce dure depriving the re ceiving court of jurisdiction." The r ecor d demonstrates that the petitioner filed two mot ion s se e kin g a

c ha ng e of

ve nu e wi th t he Hen de rs on Cou nty tr ia l c ou rt . T he state app are ntl y consente d to the s econd of these motions and the trial c ourt authorized the chang e to Madison Count y u n d e r Ru le 2 1 o f

th e T e n n e s s e e Ru le s o f

Crim in a l P r o c e d u r e

. Wh il e th e p e ti ti o n e r n ow c la ims that hi s tr ia l c ou ns e l di d n ot h a ve his pe rm iss ion to f ile the se c on d mo tio n, that is no t a cog nizable claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. See A rch er , 8 5 1 S

. W

. 2d at 164. I n our view, the pe tit ion e r h a s f

a ile d to e sta

bli sh that th e Ma dis on Cou nty tr ia l c ou rt

wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n. Th us , t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o terr b y d i s m i s s i n g t h e p et i t i o n wi t h o u ta h ea ri n g.
Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRES I DING JUDGE