IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs September 27, 2011

BRYAN KEITH GOOD v. JIM MORROW, WARDEN

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bledsoe County

No. 2011-CR-24 J. Curtis Smith, Jr., Judge

No. E2011-01166-CCA-R3-HC - Filed December 12, 2011

The Petitioner, Bryan Keith Good, appeals as of right from the Bledsoe County Circuit

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

(1) that the judgment against him is void because the State failed to include the name of the

victim in the indictment and (2) that subsequent amendment of the indictment did not cure

the alleged defect. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

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

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

WILLIAMS and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Bryan Keith Good, Pikeville, Tennessee, pro se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Leslie E. Price, Assistant Attorney

General;James Michael Taylor, District Attorney General; and James W. Pope, III, Assistant

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

OPINION

The record reflects that on July 9, 2008, the Petitioner was convicted of criminally

negligent homicide, attempted aggravated robbery, and unlawful possession of a deadly

weapon. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner as a Range III, persistent offender to 15

years for the attempted aggravated robbery conviction and to 6 years for each of the

remaining convictions. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively for

an effective sentence of 27 years. This court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and

sentence on direct appeal. State v. Bryan Keith Good, No. E2009-00926-CCA-R3-CD, 2010

WL 3706625 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 23, 2010), perm. appeal dismissed (Tenn. March 9,
2011). On April 6, 2011, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the attempted aggravated robbery

count of the indictment failed to name the victim. The habeas corpus court summarily

dismissed the petition on May 17, 2011, and this appeal followed.

The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus erred by summarily dismissing his

petition. The Petitioner argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the attempted

aggravated robbery count of the indictment failed to name the victim. The Petitioner further

argues that the subsequent amendment of the indictment failed to cure the alleged defect.

The State responds that the lack of the victim’s name on the indictment does not render the

judgment void.

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.” See 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 court may summarily dismiss a petition for habeas corpus relief,

without the appointment of counsel and without an evidentiary hearing, if the petition does

not state a cognizable claim. See Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004).

A challenge to the sufficiency of an indictment may be brought in a habeas corpus

proceeding if “the indictment is so defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction.” Dykes

v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998). However, this court has previously

determined that “the identity of the victim is not an essential element of [attempted

aggravated robbery], and the charging instrument is not defective merely for failing to

identify the victim.” State v. Clark, 2 S.W.3d 233, 235 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). As such,

the Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. See Jeffrey A.

Simmons v. State, No. W2007-01925-CCA-R3-HC, 2008 WL 2115443, at *2 (Tenn. Crim.

App. May 20, 2008), perm. appeal denied (Tenn. Oct. 27, 2008). Accordingly, we conclude

that the habeas corpus court did not err in summarily dismissing the petition.

-2-
In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgment of the

habeas corpus court is affirmed.

_________________________________

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE

-3-