IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs October 5, 2010

RICKY LYNN HILL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Chester County

No. 07-444 Roy B. Morgan, Jr., Judge

No. W2010-01374-CCA-R3-HC - Filed December 13, 2010

On August 18, 2008, the petitioner, Ricky Lynn Hill, pled guilty to DUI, leaving the scene

of an accident, and attempted tampering with evidence; he also pled nolo contendere to

vehicular assault. After holding that the petitioner could not be convicted of DUI for double

jeopardy reasons, the circuit court sentenced the petitioner to an effective sentence of five

years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for

habeas corpus relief. The petitioner now appeals the judgment of the Chester County Circuit

Court dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief. After review, we affirm the judgment

denying habeas corpus relief.

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

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

MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Ricky Lynn Hill, Tiptonville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper,Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Cameron L. Hyder, Assistant Attorney

General; James G. Woodall, District Attorney General; and Alfred Lynn Earls, Assistant

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

OPINION

Background

The petitioner, Ricky Lynn Hill, appeals the circuit court’s order summarily

dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the record and the

applicable law, we affirm the court’s order.
On August 18, 2008, the petitioner, Ricky Lynn Hill, entered guilty pleas to DUI,

leaving the scene of an accident, and attempted tampering with evidence; he also pleaded

nolo contendere to vehicular assault. On May 21, 2009, the circuit court held that the

petitioner could not be convicted of both DUI and vehicular assault because DUI is a lesserincluded offense of vehicular assault. The DUI guilty plea was subsequently dismissed. On

June 9, 2009, the trial court imposed upon the petitioner a sentence of two years for the

vehicular assault, three years for the attempted tampering with evidence, and eleven months

twenty-nine days for leaving the scene of an accident, all running consecutive, leaving

petitioner with a total sentence of five years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days.

On October 5, 2009, the petitioner filed his first petition for sentence reduction and

habeas corpus relief. On May 17, 2010, the petitioner filed a second petition for writ of

habeas corpus. On May 20, 2010 the circuit court denied habeas corpus relief because the

petitioner filed his petition in the wrong venue and he failed to state a cognizable claim for

relief. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal on June 22, 2010.

Analysis

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).

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. Tenn. Code Ann. § 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. 1994), superceded

-2-
by statute as stated in State v. Steven S. Newman, No. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL

104492 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, March 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 requirements.” Hickman, 153 S.W.3d at 21.

In this case, the petitioner did not follow the procedural requirements for habeas

corpus relief. Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-105, the application for

habeas corpus relief “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 filed his petition in Chester County rather than in

Lake County, where the petitioner is housed. The trial court held that the petitioner had been

advised as to the proper venue in which to file his petition and that the petitioner intentionally

and knowingly filed his petition in the wrong venue. The petitioner has not argued any

reason to file in the Chester County Circuit Court. 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 Alphonso Bradford v. State, No. M2008-0137-CCA-R3-

HC, 2008 WL 5191307 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 10, 2008), perm. to appeal

denied (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2009).

Further, the petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief.

The petitioner argues that his plea was involuntary and unknowing. However, the

involuntary entry of a guilty plea is not a cognizable issue for relief under habeas corpus

because it would render the judgment merely voidable as opposed to void as is required to

obtain habeas corpus relief. Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 163.

For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that the petitioner not only failed to comply

with the procedural requirementsfor habeas corpusrelief, but also failed to state a cognizable

claim for habeas corpus relief. Therefore, the circuit court’s order summarily dismissing the

petition for habeas corpus relief is affirmed.

___________________________________

J.C. McLIN, JUDGE

-3-