IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

July 2000 Session

JAMES F. KARLS v. PERCY PITZER, ET AL.

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County

No. 9153 Jon Kerry Blackwood, Judge

No. W1999-01107-COA-R3-CV - Filed September 12, 2000 

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

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

Remanded

DAVID R.FARMER,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W.FRANK CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.,

and HOLLY K. LILLARD, J., joined.

James F. Karls, Pro Se.

Tom Anderson, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellees, Percy Pitzer, Corrections Corporation of

America and Doctor R. Crants. 

OPINION

James F. Karls, proceeding pro se, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s denial of

his habeas corpus petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Rule

12.02(6) Tenn. R. Civ. P. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted challenges the legal sufficiency of the claim. This motion does not weigh the strength of the

proof presented by the petitioner. A court determines whether to grant the motion based solely on

the allegations stated in the complaint, and, for purposes of the motion, the allegations are taken as

true. See Bell ex. rel. Snyder v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., 986

S.W.2d 550 (Tenn. 1999).

In early 1993, the petitioner was extradited to the United States as per an agreement between

the governments of Costa Rica and the United States. The terms of the extradition agreement

required that Mr. Karls serve no more than twenty-five years imprisonment if convicted. On April

22, 1994, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. On January 12, 1995, the

Wisconsin governor commuted the appellant’s sentence to twenty-five years with no possibility of

parole to honor the extradition agreement. On a date not made clear by the record, the appellant was
-2-

delivered to the custody of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA placed Mr. Karls at

Whiteville Correctional Facility, a CCA operated private prison facility in Hardeman County.

On July 22, 1999, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his

incarceration by CCA is unlawful as it violates the United States, Tennessee and Wisconsin

Constitutions as well as Tennessee and Wisconsin statutes. The petitioner pled what he considered

“numerous assignments of error” including: 1) breach of international agreements, 2) unlawful

extradition from a foreign country, 3) improper conviction, 4) unlawful clemency commutation, 5)

illegal confinement, and 6) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. In addition, the petitioner

claimed that he was no longer a Wisconsin state prisoner because he had been remanded to the

custody of CCA in violation of Wisconsin law. On July 30, 1999, the trial court dismissed the

petition on the ground that it failed to state a cause upon which relief can be granted. The petitioner

now seeks this court’s review of the lower court’s dismissal, stating in his petition the he “disagrees

and even strongly feels that he has stated quite a claim and relief should be granted according to the

Tennessee [c]onstitution.” It is the conclusion of this court that the trial court correctly dismissed

the petition for habeas corpus relief.

In Tennessee, habeas corpus relief is available only if “it appears upon the face of the

judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered, that a convicting

court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant’s sentence

of imprisonment or other restraint has expired.” Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993).

 If the reviewing court finds nothing to indicate that the petitioner’s convictions are entitled to relief,

the court shall dismiss the petition without issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. See Tenn. Code

Ann. § 29-21-109 (1980). In addition, under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court

has the authority to dismiss pleadings which fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12. 

The petitioner contends that the convicting court in Wisconsin was without jurisdiction to

sentence the petitioner because the court entered a statutorily mandated life sentence in violation of

the twenty-five year limit in the international extradition agreement between the United States and

Costa Rica. We fail to see how this sentence would deprive the state of Wisconsin of jurisdiction

for a crime committed within the borders of that state. Additionally, the petitioner challenged his

extradition from Costa Rica, his conviction, his clemency commutation by Governor Thompson and

ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. These issues do not render the petitioner’s conviction

void, merely voidable; and thus, are not grounds for which habeas corpus relief may be granted in

Tennessee. Additionally, the petitioner has not raised any claims in his petition that his sentence has

expired, and thus it is not necessary for the court to address this issue.

A petitioner for habeas corpus relief bears the burden of demonstrating that his conviction

is void or that his term of confinement has expired. See Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Mr. Karls has not shown that the judgment convicting him is void, and,

as such, he has failed to meet his burden in this case. As the petition failed to state a claim which

would entitle him to habeas corpus relief, the trial court was correct in its dismissal of the petition.
-3-

See id. (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellant James F. Karls, and his surety, for which

execution may issue if necessary.

___________________________________ 

DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE