Anderson v. Jarnigan
| Decision Date | 01 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. E2017-02534-CCA-R3-HC,E2017-02534-CCA-R3-HC |
| Parties | STEVEN ANDERSON v. ESCO JARNIGAN, SHERIFF, and STATE OF TENNESSEE |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamblen County
The Petitioner, Steve Anderson, appeals from the Hamblen County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 1985 convictions for receiving and concealing stolen property, possession of engines and transmissions with altered numbers, arson of an automobile, and escape and his forty-two-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing his petition and by finding him in contempt of court, which resulted in a ten-day sentence in confinement. Although the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing the petition pursuant to the mootness doctrine, we conclude that the petition fails to state a colorable claim for habeas corpus relief. Furthermore, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court relative to the contempt determination and dismiss the charge.
Steven Anderson, Morristown, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; and Dan E. Armstrong, District Attorney General; and Kim Morrison, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINIONThe record reflects that the Petitioner was convicted in 1985 of "[b]uying or possessing vehicle engine and transmission, lack of serial number, carrying burglary instruments, arson of a vehicle, alternating serial numbers, and escape" and that he received a forty-two-year sentence.1 The Petitioner received parole in 1995 but was placed in federal custody until July 1998, at which time he was released from confinement and began reporting to the Morristown parole office. The Petitioner complied with the terms of his release until his April 2016 arrest, in relevant part, for driving under the influence (DUI) and for violating the implied consent law. The Petitioner reported his arrest to his parole officer within forty-eight hours, and although the DUI charge and the implied consent violation were ultimately dismissed, the parole board initiated revocation proceedings as a result of the arrest. The record shows that the determinations of the hearing officer at the first revocation hearing were overturned on appeal and that at the subsequent revocation hearing on April 21, 2017, the hearing officer determined that the Petitioner consumed alcohol to excess, recommended revocation of his parole, and agreed to revisit the revocation in July 2017. The Petitioner states he learned the following month that the parole board followed the recommendation of the hearing officer and revoked his parole.
On September 26, 2017, the Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which stated that he was "not attacking his sentence" or the rules of parole. The Petitioner conceded that the habeas corpus court did not have jurisdiction over the Board of Parole. The petition stated that the Petitioner's parole officer who testified at the revocation hearing violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights. The Petitioner alleged that his parole officer failed to interview him before submitting a violation report to the parole board and had ex parte communications with the hearing officer presiding during the first revocation hearing, which resulted in the Petitioner's witnesses not being permitted to testify. The Petitioner asserted that he was "not attacking the parole system . . . however the people doing their job is what [was] being addressed." He alleged that he should have received notice from the parole board before the board met at the county jail and the opportunity to meet with the members. The Petitioner stated that he was attacking the "personal duties of each officer of the Parole Board" and alleged that he was denied due process of law after having been on parole for twenty-one years.
The habeas corpus court appointed counsel to represent the Petitioner, but the Petitioner declined counsel's assistance at an initial court appearance and sought to represent himself in the habeas corpus proceedings. He informed the habeas corpus court that although he had again received parole three or four weeks before his initial court appearance,he had not been released from confinement and had been confined for eighteen months. The habeas corpus court scheduled the evidentiary hearing for approximately one month later.
At the evidentiary hearing, the Petitioner told the habeas corpus court that he had since been released from confinement and had been returned to parole. When the court inquired about what relief the Petitioner desired, the Petitioner stated that he wanted the court to "vacate his sentence." The Petitioner argued that he was arrested based upon an "illegal parole violation." He alleged that "they" had ex parte communications, conspired against him, and told one of his witnesses that the Petitioner would not be released before the hearing occurred "because the decision [had] already been made." He argued that it was unlawful to determine the outcome of a matter before the hearing was held.
The habeas corpus court attempted to clarify the "charge" for which the Petitioner sought a dismissal, and the Petitioner stated that he was not seeking a dismissal of the charges that led to the parole revocation because he knew those charges had been dismissed. The Petitioner said, The court asked whether the Petitioner sought a dismissal of the "whole underlying case" for which the Petitioner was on parole, and the Petitioner responded, He said he had done nothing to warrant the revocation of his parole.
The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition for relief pursuant to the mootness doctrine. The court stated that even if the parole board acted improperly, granting habeas corpus relief relative to the underlying convictions for which the Petitioner was now on parole was not appropriate. The court found that the Petitioner had been released from confinement and had been granted parole by the time of the evidentiary hearing and that as a result, the Petitioner was not illegally detained. The court found that the Petitioner's supporting documentation showed that the Petitioner received a forty-one-year sentence in 1985 and that even if the parole board mishandled the parole violation, habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
After the habeas corpus court announced its ruling, the judge told the Petitioner that he could appeal the court's determination. The Petitioner stated that he would appeal the ruling and that everyone would meet again in federal court. The judge stated, "Good Luck to you, sir," and the Petitioner responded, The judge asked the Petitioner if he wanted to go to jail, but without a response from the Petitioner, the judge found the Petitioner in contempt of court and instructed the court officer to place the Petitioner in custody. The judge found that the Petitioner had committed direct contempt of court, stated he would not tolerate such assertions, and sentenced the Petitioner to ten days' confinement. This appeal followed.
The Petitioner asserts that the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing his petition. The State responds that the court properly denied relief because the petition failed to comply with the statutory procedural requirements when filing a petition for habeas corpus relief and failed to state a colorable claim for habeas corpus relief.
Habeas corpus relief is generally available to "[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of liberty" whose judgment is void or whose sentence has expired. T.C.A. § 29-21-101 (2012); see Tucker v. Morrow, 335 S.W.3d 116, 119-20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). A petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a judgment is void or that a sentence has expired. State v. Davenport, 980 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). A void judgment exists if it appears from the face of the judgment or the record that the convicting court lacked jurisdiction or authority to sentence the defendant or that a defendant's sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Tenn. 1993); see Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512, 515 (Tenn. 2005). In contrast, "[a] voidable judgment is one that is facially valid and requires proof beyond the face of the record or judgment to establish its invalidity." Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tenn. 2007); see State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000).
Post-conviction relief, not habeas corpus relief, is the appropriate avenue of relief for certain voidable judgments. T.C.A. § 40-30-103 (2012); see Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106, 115 (Tenn. 2006). A habeas corpus court may dismiss a petition for relief without an evidentiary hearing or the appointment of counsel when the petition fails to state a cognizable claim. Yates v. Parker, 371 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012); see T.C.A. § 29-21-109 (2012). The question of whether habeas corpus relief should be granted is a question of law, and this court will review the matter de novo without a presumption of correctness. Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005).
As a preliminary matter, the State correctly notes in...
To continue reading
Request your trial