IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 17, 2018

MARDOCHE OLIVIER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County

No. CC17-CR-208 William R. Goodman, III, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2017-01056-CCA-R3-HC

___________________________________

Defendant, Mardoche Olivier, was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury for 

the offense of driving a vehicle at a time when his license to drive had been canceled, 

suspended, or revoked. This charge is currently pending in Montgomery County Circuit 

Court. However, Defendant filed pro se a petition for habeas corpus relief in the trial 

court as to the pending charge. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition the 

following day, and Defendant has appealed. We conclude that the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s habeas corpus petition, and accordingly the trial 

court properly summarily dismissed the petition. We also conclude that because 

Defendant has filed numerous similar habeas corpus petitions in cases where there is no 

final judgment to attack and he has repeatedly appealed the dismissals, that this is a 

frivolous appeal and Defendant is abusing the appellate process. Accordingly, we affirm 

the trial court’s summary dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, and order that the Clerk 

of this Court shall not file any further notices of appeal from Defendant in habeas corpus 

matters unless Defendant attaches to the notice of appeal a copy of the final judgment 

challenged in his habeas corpus petition.

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

THOMAS T. WOODALL, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which 

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Mardoche Olivier, Clarksville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia Lee, Senior Counsel; John 

Wesley Carney, Jr., District Attorney General; and Daniel Stephenson, Assistant District 

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

01/30/2018
- 2 -

OPINION

As stated above, Defendant’s criminal charge in this case, designated as case 

number CC17-CR-208 in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, is still pending. It is 

well established that a criminal defendant may not pursue habeas corpus relief while an 

original criminal case or direct appeal is pending involving the same matter of 

confinement. See Hankins v. State, 512 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1974).

Rule 22(B) of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals states that:

A “frivolous” appeal is not merely one that is likely to be 

unsuccessful. It is one that is so readily recognizable as devoid of merit 

that there is little, if any, prospect that it can ever succeed. To be frivolous, 

an appeal must be so clearly untenable or manifestly insufficient that its 

character may be determined by a bare inspection of the record, without 

argument or research.

Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 22. We determine from a “bare inspection of the record” that 

the instant appeal is “devoid of merit” and “clearly untenable.” The appeal is frivolous

and Defendant is abusing the appellate system by repeatedly filing frivolous appeals. 

Therefore, costs are taxed to Defendant. Furthermore, the Appellate Court Clerk (Clerk) 

shall not accept for filing any of Defendant’s habeas corpus appeals unless Defendant 

attaches to his pleading a copy of a final judgment of conviction. See Jessie D. 

McDonald v. State, No. M2005-00205-SC-R10-HC (Tenn. Feb. 3, 2005) (Order) (noting 

that the appellant was abusing the system and directing the Clerk to refuse to accept any 

additional filings from the appellant related to that particular matter). 

Accordingly, the trial court’s order dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief 

is affirmed. Costs are taxed to Defendant. The Appellate Court Clerk shall not accept for 

filing any notice of appeal from an order denying habeas corpus relief which is submitted 

by Defendant unless Defendant attaches a copy of the final judgment of conviction which 

is challenged by Defendant’s habeas corpus petition.

____________________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE