1

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

TRACY LYNN HARRIS v. JIM WORTHINGTON, WARDEN (STATE OF

TENNESSEE)

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County

No. 6953 J. Weber McCraw, Judge

No. W2008-00603-CCA-R3-HC - Filed August 22, 2008 

The Petitioner, Tracey Lynn Harris, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas

corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial

of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the State's

motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the

lower court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the

Court of Criminal Appeals

J. C. MCLIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and CAMILLE R.

MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Tracy Lynn Harris, pro se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; Michael Moore, Solicitor General; Lacy Elaine

Wilber, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 10, 2005, the Petitioner, Tracy Lynn Harris, entered a guilty plea to one count of

escape, a class E felony. For this conviction, the trial court imposed upon the Petitioner a two-year

sentence in the Department of Correction. The trial court further ordered that this two-year sentence

be served consecutive to the Petitioner’s outstanding sentences resulting from Carroll County

convictions for first degree murder and aggravated rape. The Petitioner received sentences of life

without the possibility of parole and twenty years, respectively, for the Carroll County convictions.
2

It appears that the Petitioner previously unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief and habeas

corpus relief.

On February 8, 2008, the Petitioner filed, in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County, a petition

for habeas corpus relief. As ground for relief, the Petitioner alleged that his two-year sentence of

confinement is illegal as it is in direct contravention of sections 40-20-103(a) and 40-35-501(a)(2),

Tennessee Code Annotated. In this regard, the Petitioner asserted that the illegal sentence is void.

The Petitioner argued that he received a two-year sentence at thirty percent release eligibility. He

stated that thirty percent of a two-year sentence is “219 days.” He reasoned that a sentence of 219

days is prohibited by section 40-20-103(a), Tennessee Code Annotated, which proscribes a sentence

of less than twelve months in the Department of Correction. Similarly, the Petitioner asserted that

his two-year sentence is violative of section 40-35-501(a)(2), Tennessee Code Annotated, which

states that only inmates with felony sentences or consecutive felony sentences greater than two years

are eligible for parole consideration. Accordingly, he reasoned that his two-year sentence with a

thirty-percent release eligibility date is illegal. Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the illegality of the

two-year sentence imposed renders his guilty plea void. On February26, 2008, the trial court entered

an order dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner timely filed a notice of

appeal document. 

The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the lower court's denial of relief

pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. As basis for its motion, the

State asserts that the Petitioner has failed to “show how his sentence is illegal.” The State further

contends that the Petitioner was properly sentenced to serve his two-year sentence in the penitentiary.

The Petitioner has filed a response in opposition to the State’s motion for affirmance. The Petitioner

contends that he has asserted grounds establishing how is sentence is illegal.

The determination of whether to grant habeas corpus relief is a question of law. As such, we

will review the habeas corpus court's findings de novo without a presumption of correctness.

Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that the

sentence is void or that the confinement is illegal.” Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000).

Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantees an accused the right to seek

habeas corpus relief. See Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). A writ of habeas corpus

is available only when it appears on the face of the judgment or the record that the convicting court

was without jurisdiction to convict or sentence the defendant or that the defendant is still imprisoned

despite the expiration of his sentence. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn.1993); Potts v.

State, 833 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). In other words, habeas corpus relief may be sought only

when the judgment is void, not merely voidable. See Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83. “A void judgment

‘is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority

to render the judgment or because the defendant's sentence has expired.’ We have recognized that

a sentence imposed in direct contravention of a statute, for example, is void and illegal.” Stephenson

v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Taylor, 955 S.W.2d at 83).
3

However, if after a review of the habeas petitioner's filings the habeas corpus court

determines that the petitioner would not be entitled to relief, then the petition may be summarily

dismissed. T .C.A. § 29-21-109; State ex rel. Byrd v. Bomar, 381 S.W.2d 280 (Tenn. 1964).

Further, a habeas corpus court may summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus without

the appointment of a lawyer and without an evidentiary hearing if there is nothing on the face of the

judgment to indicate that the convictions addressed therein are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d

619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), superceded by statute as stated in State v. Steven S. Newman, No.

02C01-9707-CC-00266 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 11, 1998).

The procedural requirements for habeas corpus relief are mandatory and must be scrupulously

followed. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 19-20 (Tenn. 2004); Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 165. “A

habeas corpus court may properly choose to dismiss a petition for failing to comply with the statutory

procedural requirements.” Hickman, 153 S.W.3d at 21. Although not acknowledged by either party,

we note that the Petitioner filed his petition in the wrong court. The Petitioner is incarcerated at the

Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex in Morgan County. He filed his application for the writ in

the Hardeman County Circuit Court. Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-105, “[t]he

application should be made to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the

applicant, unless a sufficient reason be given in the petition for not applying to such court or judge.”

The Petitioner failsto argue any reason to file in the Hardeman County Circuit Court. Additionally,

although the Hardeman County Circuit Court is the court of conviction, this Court has repeatedly

held that this is not a sufficient reason for filing in a court other than one where the petitioner is

located. See, e.g. Larry L. Halliburton v. State, No. W2001-00755-CCA-R3-CO (Tenn. Crim. App.,

at Jackson, Jan. 30, 2002), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. July 1, 2002); Jimmy Wayne Wilson v.

State, No. 03C01-9806-CR-00206 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 24, 1999), perm. to appeal

denied, (Tenn. Nov. 22, 1999); Charles Bryant v. State, No. 03C01-9803-CR-00115 (Tenn. Crim.

App., at Knoxville, May 4, 1999). The Petitioner has failed to comply with Tennessee Code

Annotated section 29-21-105, and this alone is an adequate basis for the trial court to dismiss his

petition. See Clifford W. Rogers v. State, No. W2002-02268-CCA-R3-CO (Tenn. Crim. App., at

Jackson, March 25, 2003).

Additionally, it is apparent on the record that the Petitioner’s sentences of life without parole

plus twenty years, imposed in October 1999, have not expired. It is equally clear that the Petitioner’s

two-year sentence, subsequently ordered to be served consecutively to these previous sentences, has

not expired. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the sentencing court was without

jurisdiction to convict or sentence the Petitioner for his crimes. 

When an opinion would have no precedential value, the Court of Criminal Appeals may

affirm the judgment or action of the trial court by memorandum opinion when the judgment is

rendered or the action taken in a proceeding without a jury and such judgment or action is not a

determination of guilt, and the evidence does not preponderate against the finding of the trial judge.

See Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 20. We conclude that this case satisfies the criteria of Rule 20 .

Accordingly, it is ordered that the State's motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is
4

affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 , Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

___________________________________ 

J.C. MCLIN, JUDGE