1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

MIC HAE L HEN DER SON v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 06-02-0169 Joe H. Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2006-01798-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 26, 2007

The Petitioner, Micha el Hende rson, appe als the lower court’s denial of his petition for habe as cor pus re lie f. Th e State ha s f

ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ng that this C ourt a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt

purs ua nt t o Ru le 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The Petitioner has failed to c omply with the proce dural require ments for see king habea s corpus re lief and ha s failed to alleg e any g round that would re nder the jud g me nt o f c onvic tio n v oid . A c c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s dis mis sa l. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e ntof t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua ntto Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined. Michae l Hender son, pro se. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; So ph ia S. L ee, A ssistant Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Mic ha e l H e nd e rs on , a lle g e s that he wa s in dic te d f or on e c ount o f atte mpt

to c omm it a g g ra

vate d r ob be ry , o ne c ount o f atte mpt to c omm it f

ir st de g re e mur de r, on e c ount o f f ir st de g re e pr e me dit ate d mu

rder, on e c ount o f f

ir st d e g re e fe lony

mur de r a nd on e c ount o f e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated robbe ry . He maintains that, in May 2004, he ente red guilty

pleas to one c ount of second degree m urder

and one c ount of attempt to commit first deg ree murder. H e fur ther states that he2

re c e ive d s e nte nc e s o f t

we nty-f ive y e ars and

fi ft e e n ye ars re sp e c tiv e ly fo r t he se of fe ns e s. He is curr ently confine d at the Har deman County Correc tional Fac ility

in Whi teville, Tenne ssee, whe re he is servingthese sente nces. On J uly 11, 2006, the Petitioner filed a p etition for habe as cor pus relief in the Har deman County Circuit Court. As g rounds for r elief, the Petitioner alleg ed that the judg ments of conviction wer e void due to “ [a] violation of constitutional rights, violation of due proce ss, violation of equal protec tion and various amendment rights.” The P etitioner g ener ally complained that he rec eived the ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel and that the e vidence was insufficient to suppor t his c onvictions.” Specifica lly , t h e Petitioner maintained that (1) the ac tions upon which he wa s convicted w ere justified due to the intox ication of the victim, ( 2) he did not have the prope r mental state to support his convictions and (3) he was ne ver positively iden t i fi ed as t he per

petrator. Additionally , the P et i t i o n er co mp l ai n edth at th e cr i m e sc en e wa s n o tp ro p er l y p ro ce s s ed

. A c o p y

o f t h e t o x i co l o gy repor t was attac hed to the petition defe ctive indictment. In an orde r ente red July

17, 2006, the lower

court dism issed the petit ion, concluding that the Petitioner had fa iled to attach the judgment forms ca using the restra int or a copy of the re cord of the proce eding s. Additionally , the lower court de term i n ed t hat the Petitioner’s a lleg ations, i.e. , “ [h ]e complains that his attorney did not appeal the c ase . . . , [h] e complains that [he] never ha d preme ditation and did not intend to harm . . . , [h] e complains that the toxicology repor t showed the victim tested positive for nar cotics.,” “ are [ n o t ] t h e subj ect of a habe as cor

pus petition.” The Petitioner filed a timely

notice of a

ppeal doc ument. The de termination of whe ther to g rant habea s corpus r elief is a que stion of law. McLaney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn.2001) , overruled in part by Charles G. Summers v . State, --- S.W .3d

-- -- , N o. M2 00 4- 02 80 6- SC- R11 -H C ( Te nn . 2 00 7) . T he Te nn e sse e Co ns ti tutio n gua ra nte e s a convicted c rimina l d ef

en d an t the rig ht to seek habea s corpus r elief. SeeTenn. Const. art. I , § 15. Howeve r, the grounds upon which habea s corpus r elief w ill be gr anted a re ve ry narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (T en n . 1999). A pe tition for habea s corpus r elief ma y only be grante d when the judgment is shown to be void, rath er t h an m er el y voidable. Id. 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 on v i ct i n g court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence a defe ndant or that a

defe ndant' s sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) . On the other ha

nd, a voidable judg ment or sentenc e is one whic h is facia lly valid and which re qu ir e s e vid e nc e be yon d th e fa c e of the jud g me nt or the re c or d o f t he pr oc e e din g s to e sta

bli shits invalidity

. Tay lor

, 995 S.W .2d at 83. Ap e t i t i o n e r

b e ar s th e b ur d e no f

e s t ab 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 preponde ranc e of the e vidence

. W yatt v. State, 24 S.W. 3d 31 9, 32 2 (T e nn . 200 0) . Furt he rm or e , it

is permissible for a

court to summarily

dismiss a habea s corpus pe tition, without the appointment of counsel a nd without an evidentiar

y hear ing, if there is nothing on the fac e of the rec ord or judg ment to indicate that the c onvictions or s en t en ce s addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

.3

Ad dit ion a lly , th e pr oc e dura l r e qu ir e me nts fo r ha be a s cor pu s re lie f a

re mand ator

y and mus t be scr upulously followed. Hickm an v. State, 153 S.W .3 d19-20 (Te nn. 2004). The f ormal require ments for a

n application for

habea s corpus re lief are codified at 29-21- 107, Tenne ssee Code Annotated, a

nd a trial c ourt may

proper ly choose to dismiss a petition for failing t o comply with the statutory proce dural re quirements . . . .” Hickm an, 153 S.W .3d at 21. In th e p re s en t case, the P e t i t i o n e r f

a i l e d t o a dh e r e t o th e m an d at o r y r e qu i r e m e n t s f

o r h a b e a s c o r p u s p e t i t i o n s . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, the Pe tit ion e r f

a ile d to inc lud e c op ie s o f t he judg me nts of c onvic tio n und e r whic h h e c la ims he is illega lly detained. SeeT.C.A. § 29-21-107( b)(2)

. This rea son alone pr ovides ade quate justification for the tr ial court' s summary dismiss al of the pe tition. No tw ith sta

nd ingthe pr oc e dura l di sq ua lif ic atio n o f t

he pe tit ion , th e lower c ou rt pr op e rl y found that the pe tition failed to state a ground for habeas corpus relief . The Petitioner’s c halleng es to trial counsel’s pe rfor

mance , the suffic iency

of the c onvicting evidenc e and the proce ssing of the c ri me sc e ne are iss ue s th at w ou ld r e nd e r a jud g me nt v oid a

ble , n ot v oid , a

nd , thu s, may

no t c on sti tut e a ground for

habea s corpus re lief.
When an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, the Court of C ri m i n al Appeals may a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt

by mem or 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

ke n in a pr oc e e din gwi tho ut a

jur y and su c h ju dg me nt o r act ion is no t a deter mination of guilt, and the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the findingof the trial judg e. SeeTenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 2 0

. W e co n cl u de that this case satisfies the cr iteria of Rule 20 . Ac c or din g ly , it is o rd e re d th at th e State ' s mo tio n is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f t he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

___________________________________ 

### JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, J UDGE