IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs March 2, 2022

CODIE HADLEY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamblen County

No. 20CR192 Alex E. Pearson, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2021-00203-COA-R3-JV

___________________________________

A juvenile entered a best interest plea to and was adjudicated delinquent for the offense of 

sexual battery. The juvenile was placed on probation under the supervision of the 

Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. He sought relief through a post-conviction 

petition in the trial court. The State moved to dismiss the petition. Pursuant to the 

juvenile’s concession that no valid claims could be brought, the trial court dismissed the 

petition. Discerning no error, we affirm. 

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

Affirmed; Case Remanded

JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT,

JR., P.J., M.S., and CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J., joined.

Ryan Thomas Logue, Morristown, Tennessee, for the appellant, Codie Hadley.

Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter, Andrée Blumstein, Solicitor 

General, and Edwin Alan Groves, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State 

of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. BACKGROUND

When he was a juvenile, Codie Hadley (“Petitioner”), was charged with Aggravated 

Sexual Battery and Rape of a Child. The Hamblen County Juvenile Court denied the 

State’s motion to transfer the action to criminal court such that Petitioner would be tried 

on the charges as an adult. Following a trial in the Hamblen County General Sessions 

Court, Petitioner was adjudicated delinquent for two counts of Aggravated Sexual Battery. 

04/20/2022
- 2 -

Consequently, he was placed on probation under the supervision of the Tennessee 

Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) and ordered to register as a juvenile sex 

offender. Petitioner appealed the delinquency adjudication to the Criminal Court for 

Hamblen County (“trial court”) and the case was set for trial. On May 1, 2019, while his 

appeal was pending, Petitioner entered a best interest plea, also known as an Alford plea,

1

to being delinquent for the lesser-included offense of Sexual Battery. By order entered 

May 1, 2019, Petitioner was removed from the juvenile sex offender registry and ordered 

to remain on probation under DCS’s supervision until his nineteenth birthday. The case 

was remanded to the juvenile court for enforcement of the judgment. 

On April 8, 2020, Petitioner filed in the trial court a pro se Petition for Relief from 

Conviction or Sentence. He alleged that his plea was not entered knowingly and 

voluntarily; his confession was coerced; the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence; 

he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the juvenile court; newly discovered 

evidence exists; and the juvenile court improperly admitted his written statement. The 

State treated the petition as one for post-conviction relief. On May 8, 2020, the State 

answered the petition to deny most of its factual allegations and to assert that Petitioner 

was not entitled to relief. Meanwhile, Petitioner cycled through three appointed attorneys, 

the last of whom filed a notice on September 18, 2020. Petitioner’s counsel certified as 

follows:

I have discussed this matter thoroughly with my client, Codie Hadley, and, 

having also investigated the grounds for which he seeks relief, have 

determined that no colorable claim may be brought from the facts now 

known to [me]. Accordingly, pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-107, [I] hereby 

give[] notice to the Court and all Parties that no amendment to the petition 

will be filed. Petitioner, Cody Hadley, has been advised of this decision in 

person. 

On September 30, 2020, the State moved to dismiss the petition based upon the 

concession in counsel’s September 18 notice. Following a hearing and by order entered 

January 25, 2021, the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the petition “based 

on counsel for the [Petitioner’s] acknowledgement that no colorable claim can be brought 

under the facts known.”2 Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. By order entered June 4, 2021, the Court of Criminal Appeals directed the parties 

to show cause why the appeal should not be transferred to this Court, reasoning as follows:

Relief under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act is only available “for claims 

based upon criminal convictions, and a sentence under juvenile adjudication 

 

1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 

2 The record does not contain a transcript of this hearing. 
- 3 -

is not a criminal conviction.” Jeremy Shane Johnson v. State, [No.] E2007-

02531-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 5158203, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2008)

(citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-133(a)). Rather, collateral challenges to 

juvenile adjudications may be raised pursuant to the Juvenile PostCommitment Procedures Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 37-1-301, et seq. 

Although indigent juvenile petitioners are entitled to the appointment of 

counsel, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-320, just as indigent adult petitioners, 

see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-115, this court does not have appellate

jurisdiction over matters arising from juvenile adjudications or from orders 

denying relief under the Juvenile Post-Commitment Procedures Act. See

Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-321 (providing that: “[t]he order granting or denying 

relief under the provisions [of the Juvenile Post-Commitment Procedures 

Act] shall be deemed a final judgment, and an appeal may be taken to the 

court of appeals by simple appeal”) (emphasis added); see also Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 37-1-159(c) (providing that appeals from the order of the criminal 

court or circuit court affirming the delinquency adjudication of the juvenile 

court “may be carried to the court of appeals”) (emphasis added). 

Order, Hadley v. State, No. E2021-00203-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. June 4, 2021). 

Petitioner’s counsel and the State responded in agreement that this case arose from the 

denial of post-commitment relief from a juvenile adjudication over which the Court of 

Criminal Appeals does not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals 

transferred the case to this Court pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 17. 

Order, Hadley v. State, No. E2021-00203-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. July 16, 2021). 

We remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of appointing new counsel to 

represent Petitioner on appeal. Petitioner was appointed new legal counsel on December 

16, 2021. 

II. ISSUES

The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Petition for 

Relief from Conviction or Sentence. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record, with a presumption of 

correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. 

See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). This 

presumption of correctness applies only to findings of fact and not to conclusions of law. 

Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996). The trial court’s 

conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. 
- 4 -

Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tenn. 2008); Union Carbide Corp. v. 

Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993). 

IV. DISCUSSION

The record indicates that all parties proceeded in the trial court with the 

understanding that Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Through counsel, 

Petitioner correctly conceded that “that no colorable claim may be brought” under the PostConviction Procedure Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-101, et seq. This is 

because Petitioner was ineligible to file a petition for post-conviction relief because he was 

not seeking relief from a criminal conviction. See Johnson v. State, No. E2007-02531-

COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 5158203, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2008) (“Tenn. Code Ann. 

§ 40-30-103[

3

] only allows for claims based upon criminal conviction, and a sentence under 

juvenile adjudication is not a criminal conviction.”) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-

133(a)). 

On appeal, the parties agreed that this matter arises from a juvenile adjudication 

rather than a criminal conviction, so the Court of Criminal Appeals transferred the appeal 

to us. Nevertheless, Petitioner’s appellate brief continues to rely solely on the PostConviction Procedure Act and associated caselaw to support his argument that the petition 

“states colorable claims” for relief. Petitioner’s reliance on these authorities is misplaced

because, again, a juvenile may not collaterally attack a delinquency adjudication through a 

petition for post-conviction relief because a juvenile adjudication is not a criminal 

conviction. Johnson, 2008 WL 5158203, at *1. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner’s 

arguments on appeal are without merit. 

Finally, Petitioner argues without citation to legal authority that the trial court “did 

not rule on the allegation of listed in the Petition’s validity [sic] nor did he address whether 

any of these claims were in fact, ‘colorable.’” To the extent that Petitioner asserts in his 

one-sentence argument that the trial court’s order was procedurally deficient, we find that 

such issue is waived. “It is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or 

construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop 

an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, 

the issue is waived.” Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of Sup. Ct., 301 S.W.3d 603, 

615 (Tenn. 2010). 

 

3

“Relief under [the Post-Conviction Procedure Act] shall be granted when the conviction or

sentence is void or voidable because of the abridgment of any right guaranteed by the Constitution of 

Tennessee or the Constitution of the United States.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-103. 
- 5 -

Discerning no error and with the foregoing considerations in mind, we affirm the 

trial court’s January 25, 2021, order dismissing the Petition for Relief from Conviction or 

Sentence. 

V. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The case is remanded for such further 

proceedings as may be necessary and consistent with this opinion. Costs of the appeal are 

taxed to the appellant, Codie Hadley. 

_________________________________ 

JOHN W. McCLARTY, JUDGE