Opinion ID: 1058533
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Void or Voidable

Text: Hickman's petition alleges that the 1986 judgment is void because it does not affirmatively indicate that he was represented by counsel or that he waived his right to counsel when he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The State responds that the judgment is not facially invalid because the judgment does not show that the convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to accept the plea and to sentence the defendant. We agree with the State. As previously indicated, the grounds upon which habeas corpus relief will be granted are narrow. Dixon, 70 S.W.3d at 36. Habeas corpus is a vehicle for attacking a judgment that is void on its face. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d at 630. `[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.' Id. (quoting Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83). In contrast, a voidable judgment is facially valid and requires the introduction of proof beyond the face of the record or judgment to establish its invalidity.  Id. at 633. Thus, [i]n all cases where a petitioner must introduce proof beyond the record to establish the invalidity of his conviction, then that conviction by definition is merely voidable, and a Tennessee court cannot issue the writ of habeas corpus under such circumstances. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d at 633. The judgment in this case is not facially invalid because the judgment does not show that the convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to accept the plea and to sentence Hickman. The copy of the judgment attached to Hickman's petition demonstrates that the General Sessions Court had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The warrant charged Hickman with possession of marijuana on May 5, 1986, a misdemeanor offense [6] over which the General Sessions Court had subject matter jurisdiction. [7] Because the General Sessions Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, [8] jurisdictional facts must affirmatively appear upon the record. See Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d at 631 n. 14; McClintock, 732 S.W.2d at 270-71. Here, those facts appear: the warrant reflects that Hickman entered a written guilty plea, requested a trial on the merits in General Sessions Court, and expressly waived his right to indictment, presentment, grand jury investigation, and jury trial. Because the judgment plainly states the essential facts establishing the court's jurisdiction, the judgment is entitled to a presumption of regularity. Id. The judgment's silence as to whether the petitioner was represented by counsel or waived the right to counsel does not defeat the presumption of regularity and render the judgment void. [9] Prior decisions of this Court clearly indicate that the presumption of regularity applies unless a defect appears on the face of the judgment. For example, in McClintock, this Court noted that, a conviction should be considered void on its face when the record affirmatively reveal[s] that the defendant had neither been represented by counsel nor waived his right to counsel.... 732 S.W.2d at 273 (citing Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980)) (emphasis added). We pointed out that the Post-Conviction Procedures Act is the proper avenue for challenging facially valid judgments. Id. at 274. Similarly, in Ritchie, this Court denied habeas corpus relief and held that a conviction is void on its face only when the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings clearly and indisputably reflects that the court of conviction lacked territorial jurisdiction. 20 S.W.3d at 633. Thus, this Court's prior decisions stand for the proposition that a judgment is entitled to a presumption of regularity and is not void unless a defect appears on the face of the judgment. These prior decisions do not support Hickman's argument that a judgment is facially void unless it affirmatively recites that the defendant was represented by counsel or waived the right to counsel. Furthermore, we have considered the cases Hickman relies upon and find them readily distinguishable. For example, in Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980), the record affirmatively revealed that the defendant had neither been represented by counsel nor waived the right to counsel. Id. at 223, 100 S.Ct. 1585; McClintock, 732 S.W.2d at 273 (noting this distinction). Similarly, in Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), the evidence of the prior Tennessee conviction included two records, one reciting that the accused appeared `without Counsel,' and the other making no reference to counsel. Id. at 112, 88 S.Ct. 258. Given these two records, one affirmatively reciting that the defendant did not have counsel and the other silent as to whether the defendant had counsel or waived counsel, the Supreme Court concluded that the records of the Tennessee conviction on their face raise a presumption that petitioner was denied his right to counsel in the Tennessee proceeding, and therefore that his conviction was void. Id. at 114, 88 S.Ct. 258 (emphasis added). Centrally important to the Burgett holding, then, was the affirmative statement that the defendant had appeared without Counsel. In light of this facial defect, the United States Supreme Court simply refused to presume a valid waiver of the right to counsel from the other Tennessee record, which was silent as to counsel. The limited scope of the Burgett holding was confirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). In Parke a state prisoner sought to vacate his Kentucky sentence, arguing that the prior convictions used to enhance his sentence were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he had not been advised of his rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Certified copies of the prior convictions did not affirmatively show that Raley had been advised of his Boykin rights, and transcripts of the plea proceedings were not available. In rejecting Raley's claim, the Court first distinguished Boykin , which stands for the proposition that the government must ordinarily create a record affirmatively showing that a guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, explaining: Boykin involved direct review of a conviction allegedly based upon an uninformed guilty plea. Respondent, however, never appealed his earlier convictions. They became final years ago, and he now seeks to revisit the question of their validity in a separate recidivism proceeding. To import Boykin 's presumption of invalidity into this very different context would, in our view, improperly ignore another presumption deeply rooted in our jurisprudence: the presumption of regularity that attaches to final judgments, even when the question is waiver of constitutional rights. Parke, 506 U.S. at 29, 113 S.Ct. 517 (internal citations omitted). The Court squarely rejected Raley's claim that Burgett supported the proposition that every previous conviction used to enhance punishment is `presumptively void' if waiver of [any] claimed constitutional right does not appear from the face of the record. Parke, 506 U.S. at 31, 113 S.Ct. 517. The Court refused to read the decision so broadly and limited Burgett to its proper historical and procedural context, stating: [a]t the time the prior conviction at issue in Burgett was entered, state criminal defendants' federal constitutional right to counsel had not yet been recognized, and so it was reasonable to presume that the defendant had not waived a right he did not possess.... [T]he same cannot be said about a record that, by virtue of its unavailability on collateral review, fails to show compliance with the well-established Boykin requirements. Id. at 31, 113 S.Ct. 517. The Court concluded: On collateral review, we think it defies logic to presume from the mere unavailability of a transcript ... that the defendant was not advised of his rights. In this situation, Boykin does not prohibit a state court from presuming, at least initially, that a final judgment of conviction offered for purposes of sentencing enhancement was validly obtained. Id. at 30, 113 S.Ct. 517. Thus, neither Baldasar nor Burgett support Hickman's claim that a judgment is void unless it affirmatively recites that the defendant had counsel or waived counsel. The United States Supreme Court's decision in Parke supports the opposite conclusion. See also United States v. Jones, 332 F.3d 688 (3rd Cir.2003); United States v. Gray, 177 F.3d 86 (1st Cir.1999); Nicely v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 579, 490 S.E.2d 281 (1997). These decisions affirm the presumption of regularity that has long been applied in habeas corpus proceedings in Tennessee. Furthermore, our research has revealed no Tennessee habeas corpus case holding that a judgment is void unless it fails to affirmatively recite that the defendant had counsel or waived the right to counsel. We also decline to adopt such a rule and instead reaffirm the well-settled principle that a judgment is void only if the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings clearly reflects that the court lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment or that the sentence has expired. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d at 633. Returning to the record in this case, we conclude that the judgment is not void on its face and is instead entitled to the presumption of regularity. The judgment contains a blank line where defense counsel is ordinarily listed, and the pre-printed Waiver of Attorney was not signed by the defendant. This judgment does not clearly reflect that the defendant was denied the right to counsel. The judgment is merely silent. Additional information outside the judgment would be needed to establish that Hickman in fact was not represented by counsel. As we previously stated, where additional proof is needed, the judgment is at most voidable, rather than void, and a post-conviction petition is the proper method for attacking a voidable judgment. Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83; McClintock, 732 S.W.2d at 272. Thus, Hickman is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Furthermore, the trial court correctly concluded that, if viewed as a post-conviction petition, Hickman's petition is time-barred by the statute of limitations. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (1990) (repealed 1995); Abston v. State, 749 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988).