IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs December 15, 2015

JOHN VERNON CAMPBELL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Johnson County

No. 15-CR-29 Lisa N. Rice, Judge

No. E2015-01292-CCA-R3-HC – Filed December 16, 2015

The Petitioner, John Vernon Campbell, appeals as of right from the Johnson County 

Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The 

Petitioner contends (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction for his premeditated first 

degree murder conviction because the offense was committed in the Cherokee National 

Forest; and (2) that the indictment charging the Petitioner was invalid due to the State’s 

dismissal of a charge of felony first degree murder. Discerning no error, we affirm the 

judgment of the habeas corpus court.

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

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT 

WILLIAMS and ROGER A. PAGE, JJ., joined.

John Vernon Campbell, Mountain City, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; and Ahmed A. Safeeullah, 

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

OPINION

The Petitioner is currently serving a life sentence for the 2003 murder of Terri 

Abbott. See State v. John Vernon Campbell, No E2005-01252-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 

2032530, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 20, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 27, 

2006). The evidence at trial established that in February 2003, the Petitioner had sex 

with the victim, then beat her with a scissor jack and left her to die in a stream located in 

secluded area of the Cherokee National Forest. Id. at *1-9. On April 6, 2015, the 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus.
-2-

In the petition, the Petitioner argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction for his 

premeditated first degree murder conviction because the offense occurred on land 

controlled by the federal government, the Cherokee National Forrest. The Petitioner 

reasoned that because it is a federal offense to commit murder “[w]ithin the special 

maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” he should have been prosecuted 

in a federal court rather than a Tennessee court. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1111(b). The Petitioner 

also argued that the indictment against him was invalid because Count 2, charging him 

with felony first degree murder, was dismissed prior to trial.

The State filed a response to the petition on May 18, 2015. The State responded 

that Tennessee retained jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed in the Cherokee 

National Forest; therefore, the Petitioner’s argument failed to establish that his judgment 

of conviction was void. The State also responded that the Petitioner was convicted of 

Count 1 of the indictment, charging him with premeditated first degree murder, and that 

the dismissal of Count 2 did not impact the validity of the indictment for Count 1. On 

June 19, 2015, the habeas corpus court entered an order summarily dismissing the 

petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner 

now appeals, with the parties raising the same arguments raised in the habeas corpus 

court.

Under Tennessee law, the “grounds upon which habeas corpus relief may be 

granted are very narrow.” Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). The writ 

will issue only where the petitioner has established: (1) a lack of jurisdiction for the 

order of confinement on the face of the judgment or in the record on which the judgment 

was rendered; or (2) that he is otherwise entitled to immediate release because of the 

expiration of his sentence. See State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000); 

Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). The purpose of the habeas corpus 

petition is to contest a void, not merely a voidable, judgment. State ex rel. Newsom v. 

Henderson, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (Tenn. 1968).

A void, as opposed to a voidable, judgment is “one that is facially invalid because 

the court did not have the statutory authority to render such judgment.” Summers v. 

State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tenn. 2007). A petitioner bears the burden of establishing a 

void judgment or illegal confinement by a preponderance of the evidence. See Wyatt v. 

State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). A habeas corpus court may summarily dismiss 

a petition without a hearing when the petition “fails to demonstrate that the judgment is 

void.” Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-

109.

It is “commonly understood” that the applicable authorizing statutes establishing 

national forests allow “concurrent jurisdiction over the national forests.” United States v. 
-3-

Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839, 855 (6th Cir. 2008). Indeed, the applicable Tennessee statute 

provides as follows:

The jurisdiction of the state of Tennessee, both civil and criminal, over 

persons upon the lands acquired for the [establishment of national forests] . 

. . shall not be affected or changed by their permanent acquisition and 

administration by the United States for such purposes, except so far as the 

punishment of offenses against the United States is concerned, the intent 

and meaning of this section being that the state of Tennessee shall not, by 

reasons of such acquisition and administration, lose its jurisdiction nor the 

inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens or be absolved 

from their duties as citizens of the state.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 11-18-103. 

Indeed, this court has previously stated, in addressing a similar claim for habeas 

corpus relief, the following:

While Congress has the power to enact legislation defining crimes to be 

exclusive of the statutes of the states, where such is not done, the statute of 

the state is not superseded by the federal statute and the same act may be 

punished as an offense against the United States and also as an offense 

against the state. 

Massengale v. Mills, 826 S.W.2d 122, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (citing California v. 

Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949)). 

Accordingly, Tennessee and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction 

over Cherokee National Forest, and there is nothing in the applicable federal statute 

prohibiting murder to suggest that it was intended to supersede the Tennessee statute 

prohibiting premeditated first degree murder. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1111(b); Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1). As such, the Petitioner was subject to prosecution for the 

murder of the victim in both state and federal court. See Gabrion, 517 F.3d at 855 (citing 

United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding conviction in 

federal court for murder committed in national forest after acquittal for same murder in 

state court); United States v. Jackson, 327 F.3d 273, 281 (4th Cir. 2003) (affirming 

conviction for murder committed in national forest after conviction for the same crime in 

state court)). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction in this case 

and that this claim for habeas corpus relief is without merit.

With respect to the Petitioner’s argument regarding the dismissal of the felony first 

degree murder charge prior to trial, we note that “[e]ach count in an indictment is a 
-4-

separate charge and each count is looked upon as a separate indictment.” State v. 

Millbrooks, 819 S.W.2d 441, 446 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). To that end, “[a]n acquittal 

on one or several charges in a multi-count indictment does not preclude a conviction 

under one or more of the other charges.” Id. Likewise, the dismissal of the felony first 

degree murder charge did not affect the validity of the premeditated first degree murder 

charge. Accordingly, we conclude that this issue is devoid of merit and affirm the habeas 

corpus court’s summary dismissal of the petition. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgment of 

the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

_________________________________ 

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE