Court Opinion

ID: 9926921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 21:10:39.391193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:05.687943
License: Public Domain

01/25/2024
        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                          AT JACKSON
                          Assigned on Briefs January 3, 2024

   CRAIG MARKEEM TAYLOR v. BRANDON WATWOOD, WARDEN

                   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County
                     No. 23-CR-10932 Mark L. Hayes, Judge
                     ___________________________________

                           No. W2023-01169-CCA-R3-HC
                       ___________________________________

The Petitioner, Craig Markeem Taylor, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus, arguing that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily dismissing the
petition without an evidentiary hearing or the appointment of counsel. Based on our
review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.

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

JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. ROSS DYER AND
MATTHEW J. WILSON, JJ., joined.

Craig Markeem Taylor, Tiptonville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; and Ronald L. Coleman, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

                                        OPINION

                                         FACTS

       In December 2015, the Petitioner was convicted by a Madison County Criminal
Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder,
attempted aggravated burglary, and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. After
merging the felony murder convictions into the first degree premediated murder
conviction, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective term of life plus eight
years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. State v. Taylor, No. W2018-00242-
CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1435126, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2019), no perm. app.
filed.

       The convictions stemmed from a November 15, 2012, incident in which the masked
Petitioner attempted to force a woman at gunpoint inside her Jackson home and then
exchanged gunfire with the woman’s boyfriend inside the home, resulting in the
boyfriend’s death. Id. A witness identified the Petitioner as a man who was near the scene
immediately prior to the shooting, and the Petitioner’s palm print was found on the outside
air conditioning unit of the home and his DNA on a mask discarded in the back yard. Id.

       On July 17, 2023, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in
which he alleged that his judgments were void and illegal because they were imposed in
contravention of Rule 31 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and Tennessee
Code Annotated section 40-20-101, which provide, respectively, that the jury return its
verdict in open court and that the trial court, after the verdict, “shall pronounce judgment.”
The Petitioner relies for his assertion on the fact that his trial transcript in his direct appeal
ends after the last defense witness’s testimony. Attached as “Exhibit D” to his petition is
the fourth of four volumes of the trial transcript, which concludes after the witness’s
testimony with the court reporter’s parenthetical information: “(End of requested portion
of proceedings.)” The Petitioner argues that because the trial transcript does not reflect
that the jury returned its verdicts in open court or that the trial court pronounced the
judgments, and because the transcript prevails when there is a conflict between the
judgments and the transcript, his judgments must be void.

       On July 27, 2023, the habeas corpus court entered an order summarily dismissing
the petition on the basis that it was not verified by affidavit as required by Tennessee Code
Annotated section 29-21-107(a), and that it failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas
corpus relief. This appeal followed.

                                          ANALYSIS

       The Petitioner contends on appeal that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily
dismissing his petition without the appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing. The
State argues that the summary dismissal was proper because the Petitioner failed to comply
with the strict procedural requirements for filing his petition and failed to state a colorable
claim for habeas corpus relief. We agree with the State.

       As an initial matter, the Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory procedural
requirements for a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The procedural requirements for
habeas corpus relief are mandatory and must be scrupulously followed. Hickman v. State,
                                              -2-
153 S.W.3d 16, 19-20 (Tenn. 2004); Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993).
“A habeas corpus court may properly choose to dismiss a petition for failing to comply
with the statutory procedural requirements.” Hickman, 153 S.W.3d at 21. Because the
Petitioner failed to verify his petition by affidavit as required, the habeas corpus court’s
summary dismissal of the petition was proper on that basis alone.

       Furthermore, the allegations the Petitioner raised in the petition do not establish a
cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. It is well established in Tennessee that the
remedy provided by a writ of habeas corpus is limited in scope and may only be invoked
where the judgment is void or the petitioner's term of imprisonment has expired. Faulkner
v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007); State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 629 (Tenn.
2000); State v. Davenport, 980 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). 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.” Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251,
256 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998)). A
petitioner bears the burden of establishing a void judgment or illegal confinement by a
preponderance of the evidence. Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). Whether
the petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief is a question of law, which we review de
novo. Id. at 255; Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000).

        A trial court may properly dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus without
appointing counsel or holding a hearing if there is nothing on the face of the judgment to
indicate that the conviction is void or the sentence illegal. See Summers, 212 S.W. 3d at
260. As the habeas corpus court noted, there is nothing on the face of the judgments that
indicates that the judgments are void. The fact that the requested portion of the trial
transcript did not include the return of the jury’s verdicts does not render the judgments
void or the sentences illegal. Accordingly, we conclude that the habeas corpus court also
properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus
relief.

                                     CONCLUSION

      Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court summarily
dismissing the petition.

                                                 _________________________________
                                                 JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., JUDGE
                                           -3-