### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON

RA IN TH OMA S C HESHE R v. STEP HEN DO TSON , WA RD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forHardeman County No. 08-02-0306 Jose ph H . Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2008-00739-C CA-R 3-HC - Filed August 22, 2008

The pe titioner, Rain Thomas Chesher, a ppeals the H arde man County Circui t Court’s summary dis mis sa l of

his pe tit ion

fo r wr it of ha

be a s cor pu s. Th e State ha s file d a motio n re qu e sti ngtha t th is
court a ffirm the lowe r cour t’s denial of r elief purs u an t t o Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. Be cause the petitioner has f ailed to demonstrate that his conviction is void, we conclude that the S tate’s moti on is well-take n. Acc ording ly
, we affirm the lower c ourt’s summary dismiss al of the pe tition.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ff

ir me d Pur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f C r im ina l A ppe als

A LA N E. G LE NN , J. , d e liv e re d th e op ini on of the c ourt , in w hic h J .C. M C L IN and C AM I LLE R. M C M ULLEN , JJ., joined.

Rain Thomas Chesher, W hiteville, Tennesse e, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; and Sophia S. Lee
, Assistan t At torney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

F AC TS

I n May 2000, the petit ioner was convicted of first deg ree preme ditated murder and sente nced to life imprisonment. There afte r, t his court a ffirme d the petitioner’s c onviction on appea l and our supreme c ourt denied pe rmission to ap peal. State v. Rain Thomas Cheshe r, No. W2000-01701- CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 524063 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 14, 2001), perm. to a ppeal de nied (Te nn. Oct. 1, 2001). On M arc h 19, 2008, the petit ioner filed a pr o s e pe tit ion fo r wr it of ha be a s c or pu s in the Ha rdeman County

Circuit Court, alleg ing that his conviction was void beca use the trial c ourt

err oneously

instructed the j u ry . The ha beas c ourt summarily

dismiss ed the pe tition on M arc h 25, 2008, without the appointment of counse l or an e videntiary hear ing, c oncluding that habea s corpus relief was not appr opriate be cause the petitioner’s se ntence had not e x pired and the trial cour t had-2-

jurisdiction to sentence the petitioner. The petitioner filed a timely notice of appea l to this c ourt on April 7, 2008.

AN AL YSI S

The pe titioner asserts that his conviction is void beca use t he lower court e rre d: (1) in fa iling to instruct the jury

that murder is a

result of c onduct only

offe nse and that the nature of the c onduct is inconsequential; (2) in its instructions to the jury on the l es s er -i ncluded of fense s of first deg ree

mur de r; (3 ) in g ivi ng the jur y ins tr uc tio ns that pe rm itt e d a c on vic tio n wi tho ut a un anim ou s v e rd ic t; (4) by using the Pattern Jury

I nstruction to char g e the jury ; and (5) in its instruction to t h e jury on the eleme nt of preme ditation. The petiti oner also asser ts that “[t] he S tate used errone ous definitions fo r t he Me ns Re a and a

pp ro pr iate c on du c t e le me nts of the of fe ns e of F ir st De g re e Murd e r to o bta in an indictment.”

The de termination of whe ther to g rant ha beas c orpus re lief i s a q u es t ion of law. See Hi c kma n v. S tat e, 15 3 S. W.3 d 1 6, 19 (T e nn . 2 00 4) . T he Te nn e sse e Con sti tut ion g ua ra nte e s a convicted criminal defe ndant the rig ht to seek habea s corpus relief

. See Tenn. Const

. ar t

. I
, § 15. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which habeas corpus relief will be g rante d are very

narr ow. Tay

lor v. S t at e, 9 95 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A petition for habe as cor pus relief may only be g rante d wh e n the jud g me nt is sho wn to b e vo id, rathe r t

ha n me re ly vo ida ble . I d. A j ud g me nt i s v oid on ly when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt is render ed that the c onvicting c ourt was w i t h o u t jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defe ndant or that a

defe ndant’s sentenc e has expired. Arche r v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). On the othe r hand, a voidable judg ment or sentenc e is one whic h is f acia lly valid and which

re qu ir e s e vid e nc e be y on d the fa c e of the jud g me nt o r t

he re c or d o f t

he pr oc e e din g s to e sta

bli shits validity . Taylor, 995 S.W .2d at 83.

A p e t i t i o n e r

b e ar s t h e b u r d e no f e s t a b l i s h i n g a v o i d j u d g m e n to r

i l l e g a l c o n f

i n e m e n tb y a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e . Wy a tt v . St a te , 2 4 S.W. 3d 31 9, 32 2 (T e nn

. 20 00 ). F ur the rm or e , it is permissible for a court to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition, without the appointment of c o u n s e l an d w it

h o u t an e v id e n ti ar

y h e ar in g , if th e r e is n o th in g o n th e f a c e o f th e rec ord or judgme nt to indicate that the convictions or sentenc es addr essed ther ein ar e void. Passare lla v. State, 89 1 S.W.2 d 619 , 627 (T e nn . Crim . App . 1 99 4) , s up e rc e de d b y statut e a s st a te d in State v. Ste ve n S. Newma n , No

. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Te nn. Crim. App. Mar. 11, 1998).

I n th is c a s e , th e p e ti ti o n e r h a s n o t m e t h is b ur d e no f p r o v in g th a t h is c o n v ic ti o nis v o id

. We first note that the petitioner’s arguments all rely on this c ourt’s decision in State v. Page , 81 S.W .3d 781 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002), as the “cur rent case law . . . at tria l” eve n though Pag e wa s not decided until almost two y ear s afte r the pe titioner’s trial. Moreove r, the pe titioner’s cha lleng es to the jury instructions, even if pr oven, would re nder his convic tion voidabl e, n ot void. See Ronald Eug ene Gilmore v. Ke nneth L ocke, War den, No. M2005-01235- CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 1097493
, at *4 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. Mar. 30 , 2 00 6) (“ ‘E rr on e ou s jur y ins tr uc tio ns me e t none of the

. . . r e qu ir e me nts-3-

for ha b ea s corpus re lief. The only method of collate rally

attackingthe judg ment beca use of

c on sti tut ion a l de pr ivatio ns oc c a sio ne d b y e rr on e ou s jury

ins tr uc tio ns is b y

pe tit ion fo r p os t conviction relief

.’”) (quoting Wil lie Edwar d Thornton v. Raney , No. 02C01-9302-CC-00025, 1994 WL 25827, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 26, 1994)); John Haws Bur rell v. Howa

rd Carlton, Warden, No. E200 4 -0 1 700-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 544732, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2005) (conc luding that petitioner’s a rgument that trial court pr ovided er roneous instructions to jury , even if true, “ would mere ly

rende r the c onvictions voidable, not voi d ”), pe rm. to appea l denied (Te nn. J une 20, 2005); Va

nce Mc Caslin v. St ate, No. 01C01-9611- CC-00480, 1998 W L 4 4 9 1 9
, a t * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 5, 1998) (“A s a g ener al rule, ne ither er roneous jury

instructions nor the ineff

ective assistance of counse l entitle a petitioner to habe as c orpus re lief. Even if taken a s true, such alleg ations only

rende r a c onviction voidable, not v o i d

. ”)
, perm. to appe al denied ( Tenn. Nov. 9, 1998).

L ike wi se , th e pe tit ion e r’ s c ha lle ng e to t he un de rl yingind ic tme nt d oe s no t ent itl e him to habea s corpus re lief. We note that in most inst ance s a cha lleng e to the suff iciency of an indictment is not a proper

claim to raise in a habea s corpus proc eeding . See Ha g g ard v. State, 475 S.W.2d 186, 187-88 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1971). Howe ver, “ the validity of an indictment a

nd the ef fica cy of the resulting conviction may

be addr essed in a pe tition for habeas corpus when the ind ic tme nt i s so defe ctive as to deprive the court of jurisdiction.” Dy kes v. C ompton, 978 S.W .2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998). “Avalid indictment is an essential j u ri s d i cti onal eleme nt, without which there c an be no pr os e c uti on .” I d. (c ita

tio ns omi tte d) . In th is c a se , th e ind ic tme nt c ha rg ingthe pe tit ion e r w ithfi rs t deg ree preme ditated murder , in pertinent par t, rea ds: “That RAI

N THOMAS CHESHER, . . . On or about the 29th DAY O F JUNE, 1 9 9 9
, . . . did intentionally and with pre meditation kill C HERYL FAI N, there by

committing the off

ense of FI RST DEG REE MURDER, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13- 202(a) (1), a g ainst the pea ce a nd dignity of the State of T ennesse e.” O ur supreme court has held that ref ere nce to the a

ppropriate statute provides notice to the defe ndant of the applicable me ns rea , notice of the offense upon which to enter the judg ment, and prote ction from subseque nt prosecution

on the same of

fe ns e . Se e State v. Cart e r, 98 8 S. W.2 d 1 45 (T e nn . 1 99 9)

. Th e ind ic tme nt i n th is c a se also meets the r equire ments of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-13-202.

CO NC LU SION

When an o p i n i o n would have no pr ece dential value, the Court of Criminal Appeals may

a ffi rm th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt

by me mor and

um o pin ion

wh e n th e jud g me nt i s

re nd e re d o r t

he a c tio n ta

ken in a pr oc e e din g wi tho ut a

jur y and su c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a deter mination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the finding of the trial judg e. See T e n n

. Ct

. Cr im

. A p p

. R. 2 0

. We c o n c lu d e th a t th is c a s e s a ti s f ie s th e c r it e r ia o f Ru le 20. Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d th a t th e State ’s mot ion is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt of th e tr ia l c ourt is

a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th R

ule 20 , Ru le s o f t

he Cou rt of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

___________________________________ ALAN E. G LENN, JUD GE