Court Opinion

ID: 9964029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 19:14:11.781556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:08.234035
License: Public Domain

04/26/2024
                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                              AT NASHVILLE
                                Assigned on Briefs April 1, 2024

                  ERIC O. CARTER v. HOWARD GENTRY, ET AL.

                  Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County
                  No. 23-0648-IV-I   Patricia Head Moskal, Chancellor

                                 No. M2023-01016-COA-R3-CV

This appeal concerns subject matter jurisdiction. Eric O. Carter (“Petitioner”) filed a
petition for writ of mandamus in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial
Court”) against Howard Gentry (“Gentry”), Davidson County Criminal Court Clerk,1 and
Frank Strada (“Strada”), Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction
(“TDOC”), asking that the criminal judgment entered against him be expunged because it
was not properly endorsed under the applicable rules and statutes. The Trial Court
dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner appeals, arguing
that he only wants a ministerial act performed and is not challenging his sentence. We find
that Petitioner is in fact challenging his sentence, and the Trial Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to hear that challenge. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court.

    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed;
                                     Case Remanded

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G.
CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., and ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., joined.

Eric O. Carter, Pro Se.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter, and John R. Glover, Assistant Attorney
General, for the appellee, Frank Strada.

1
  Gentry filed a motion for dismissal in this Court asserting that he never was served notice of appeal and
is not a proper party to this action. Petitioner did not file a timely response. We subsequently entered an
order dismissing Gentry from this appeal.
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION2

                                              Background

       In October 2016, Petitioner was tried by a jury and convicted of first degree murder
and attempted first degree murder. He received a life sentence. Petitioner’s conviction
was affirmed in State v. Carter, No. M2017-01466-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 4026757
(Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 2018), perm. app. denied Oct. 10, 2018.

       In May 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Trial Court
against Gentry, the Davidson County Criminal Court Clerk, and Strada, the TDOC
Commissioner, asking that the criminal judgment entered against him be expunged because
it was not properly endorsed with the date received contrary to certain criminal statutes and
the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.3 In June 2023, the Trial Court entered an order
dismissing the petition, stating that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the
validity or legality of criminal convictions or sentences. Petitioner timely appealed to this
Court.

                                               Discussion

       Although not stated exactly as such, Petitioner raises the issue of whether the Trial
Court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

       Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Our Supreme Court reiterated
the long-standing rule regarding the writ of mandamus in the 1995 case of Paduch v. City
of Johnson City, stating:

        For an act to be enforced by a writ of mandamus, the act must be purely
        “ministerial.” Peerless Construction Co. v. Bass, 158 Tenn. 518, 520, 14
        S.W.2d 732 (1929). If the right to have the act performed is doubtful, the

2
  Rule 10 of the Court of Appeals Rules provides: “This Court, with the concurrence of all judges
participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum
opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum
opinion it shall be designated ‘MEMORANDUM OPINION’, shall not be published, and shall not be cited
or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.”
3
  Petitioner relied on, among other legal authorities, Tenn. R. Crim. P. 49(c)(3), with its rule that “[t]he
clerk shall endorse on every pleading and on all other papers filed with the clerk in a proceeding the date
and hour of the filing.”
                                                    -2-
       right must be first established in some other form of action. Mandamus is a
       summary remedy, extraordinary in its nature, and to be applied only when a
       right has been clearly established. Peerless, 14 S.W.2d at 733.

Paduch v. City of Johnson City, 896 S.W.2d 767, 769-70 (Tenn. 1995) (quoting Hackett v.
Smith Cnty., 807 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)). “The office of mandamus is to
execute, not adjudicate. It does not ascertain or adjust mutual claims or rights between the
parties.” Moore v. Wyeth Chandler, Mayor, 675 S.W.2d 153 (Tenn. 1984) (quoting
Peerless Constr. Co. v. Bass, 14 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. 1929)).

       The Trial Court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the
petition. In Johnson v. Hopkins, the Tennessee Supreme Court discussed subject matter
jurisdiction, stating:

              Subject matter jurisdiction involves the court’s lawful authority to
       adjudicate a controversy brought before it. Chapman v. DaVita, Inc., 380
       S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tenn. 2012); Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 924
       S.W.2d 632, 639 (Tenn. 1996). Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by
       statute or the Tennessee Constitution; the parties cannot confer it by
       appearance, plea, consent, silence, or waiver. In re Estate of Trigg, 368
       S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tenn. 2012). Any order entered by a court lacking
       jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. Id. Therefore, subject matter
       jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, which may be raised at any time in any
       court. Id.

Johnson v. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 840, 843-44 (Tenn. 2013).

      Regarding whether a chancery court such as the Trial Court may alter a criminal
conviction or sentence, this Court has explained:

       The Tennessee General Assembly has “vested exclusive and original
       jurisdiction of all criminal matters in the circuit and criminal courts of this
       state.” Tenn. Downs, Inc. v. William L. Gibbons, 15 S.W.3d 843, 848 (Tenn.
       Ct. App. 1999). Tennessee Code Annotated § 16-10-102 (2021) provides:
       “The circuit court has exclusive original jurisdiction of all crimes and
       misdemeanors, either at common law or by statute, unless otherwise
       expressly provided by statute or this code.” In addition, Tennessee Code
       Annotated § 40-1-108 (2021) provides: “The circuit and criminal courts have
       original jurisdiction of all criminal matters not exclusively conferred by law
       on some other tribunal.”

                                             -3-
               Furthermore, this Court has previously noted that “[o]ver a century
       ago, the Tennessee Supreme Court recognized that ‘[c]ourts of equity are not
       constituted to deal with crime and criminal proceedings.’ ” Carter v. Slatery,
       No. M2015-00554-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 1268110, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App.
       Feb. 19, 2016) (quoting J.W. Kelly & Co. v. Conner, 123 S.W. 622, 635
       (Tenn. 1909)). Ergo, this Court has repeatedly concluded that a chancery
       court does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of a petitioner’s
       criminal conviction. See, e.g., Windrow v. Stephens, 103 S.W.2d 584, 586
       (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937) (“The jurisdiction of equity being limited strictly to
       questions concerning civil and property rights, the courts will not in any
       manner interfere with the execution of judgments in criminal matters.”
       (quoting 1 High on Injunctions (4th Ed.) 147, § 124; 85, § 68)); Bond v. Tenn.
       Dep’t of Corr., No. M2019-02299-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 1200091, at *4
       (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2021) (“This Court does not have jurisdiction in
       this declaratory judgment proceeding to alter the Criminal Court’s judgment
       or make any determination concerning the illegality or validity of the
       Criminal Court’s judgment.”); Carter, 2016 WL 1268110, at *7 (“[W]e
       conclude that the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a
       declaratory judgment regarding the legality or constitutionality of the
       criminal judgments entered against [the petitioner].”); Dean v. Turner, No.
       W2007-00744-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 4404112, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec.
       18, 2007) (concluding that the validity of a criminal conviction is not within
       the jurisdiction of a chancery court).

Frazier v. Slatery, No. E2020-01216-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 4945235, at *4-5 (Tenn. Ct.
App. Oct. 25, 2021), no appl. perm. appeal filed.

       In his brief, Petitioner states that he is “asking this court to compel the criminal court
clerk, Howard Gentry, to expunge this illegal entry of judgment.” He states further that his
argument is “not to challenge the legality of any sentence,” but rather “that the clerk is a
ministerial body and cannot act as a judicial body to render judgment without judicial
authority.”

       In response, Strada points out that Petitioner appears to have abandoned his
argument against him, the only remaining appellee. Strada states further that any action
against TDOC alleging that Petitioner’s sentence is illegal is improper to the extent it was
not brought in habeas proceedings, citing Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn.
2005) (“[T]he proper procedure for challenging an illegal sentence at the trial level is
through a petition for writ of habeas corpus . . . .”). Finally, Strada argues that the Trial
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the validity of a criminal
conviction.
                                               -4-
       While Petitioner states that he is not challenging his sentence and that he seeks only
the performance of a ministerial act, we respectfully disagree. Petitioner has asked the
Trial Court to direct certain officials to remove the criminal judgment against him because
of its alleged illegality. This would be no mere ministerial act involving the simple
execution of a duty as opposed to an adjudication. Instead, it would amount to the Trial
Court intruding upon the exclusive purview of the appropriately constituted criminal
courts. Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus is, in reality, a challenge to the validity
of the criminal judgment against him. As such, the Trial Court, as a chancery court and
court of equity, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear that challenge. We affirm the
judgment of the Trial Court.

                                        Conclusion

      The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to the Trial
Court for collection of the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against the
Appellant, Eric O. Carter, and his surety, if any.

                                           ____________________________________
                                           D. MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE

                                             -5-