State ex rel. Hall v. Meadows

Decision Date07 April 1965
Citation19 McCanless 668,389 S.W.2d 256,215 Tenn. 668
Parties, 215 Tenn. 668 STATE of Tennessee ex rel. James H. HALL, Plaintiff in Error, v. James E. MEADOWS, Acting, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, Defendant in Error.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

James R. Omer, Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., William H. Lassiter, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for defendant in error.

WHITE, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, who is presently confined in the Tennessee State Penitentiary at Nashville, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus against the defendant in error, James E. Meadows, then Acting Warden of the said Penitentiary, in the Criminal Court of Davidson County, Tennessee.

From the judgment of the court dismissing the petition, plaintiff in error has appealed and upon application here, the Honorable James R. Omer, of the Nashville Bar, has been appointed to represent him.

Mr. Omer is to be commended for his efforts on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Paul Couch, also of the Nashville Bar, represented the petitioner in a commendable manner in the lower court, but was relieved from further representation on order of the judge there.

The original petition filed on August 5, 1964, in the handwriting of Hall said:

'That petitioner was tried in the Honorable Criminal Court of Lauderdale County by the Honorable Judge Walker on the 9th day of February, 1956 where petitioner entered a plea of guilty and was found guilty and sentenced to four to fifteen years in the Tennessee State Prison.'

It can be seen from what the petitioner says in his own handwriting, that he is guilty as charged. Despite this statement from him, which was sworn to, he contends that he did not have a fair trial because he was brought into court wearing handcuffs and leg shackles in full view of the jury during his trial.

Exhibit B to the answer is a photostat of a letter from Mark A. Walker, a distinguished trial judge, and his letter states:

'I do not recall any case in Ripley and I am sure that there have been none where the defendant's punishment has been fixed by a jury and he sentenced while wearing either handcuffs or leg shackles. If that had been done in this case, I think that I would have remembered it. I have no independent recollection of this case at this time, however.

'Since this prisoner escaped from the Penal Farm I think that it is likely that he was brought from there to Ripley in handcuffs. It is 18 or 20 miles away. The officers are very good about removing handcuffs when prisoners are brought into the court room. If any have been brought from the Penal Farm to Ripley in leg shackles I believe that they have been removed before they reached the court room because I do not remember seeing shackles.'

There is a letter in the record from William D. Grugett, Assistant District Attorney General at the time of the trial of the petitioner, the District Attorney General having since died, and in this letter he says:

'To the best of my knowledge and recollection, no one was ever brought into the courtroom wearing leg shackles.

'I might also state to you that this defendant entered a guilty plea and accepted his attorney's recommendation as to the sentence. I am certain that none of the constitutional rights of this defendant were violated during this trial in the Lauderdale County Criminal Court.'

Exhibit C to the answer is a letter from John R. Tucker, attorney, now of Memphis, who was appointed by Judge Walker to represent this indigent defendant. In this letter he says:

'I wish to state that in the years that I practiced in Ripley, Tennessee, in the courts of law there, I have never known a man to be shackled and bound while he was being sentenced by a jury. Judge Mark Walker has always conducted a proper court, and I am sure that he would never allow this to happen in his court under any condition.'

In the present proceeding the court held:

'This cause came on to be heard on the 25th day of September, 1964, * * * upon the petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner James H. Hall, the amendment to the petition, and the amended answer thereto, filed on behalf of the defendant James E. Meadows, Acting Warden, the petitioner being present in court and represented by counsel, and after a full and complete hearing the Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition, either in fact or in law, and the same should be dismissed and denied.'

Therefore, upon a full evidentiary hearing this petition was dismissed as not being sustainable either in law or in fact.

This petitioner who now complains that his constitutional rights having been violated, of which he offers no evidence in support thereof, apparently has given lititle, if any, consideration to the constitutional rights of others to be safe in their property, their homes and their businesses. He has a long record of law violation.

On September 13, 1951 he was transferred to the State Penitentiary at Nashville from the State Training and Agricultural School for Boys. He had been sentenced to serve 3 years for the crime of grand larceny by the Criminal Court of Shelby County on February 19, 1951. He escaped from confinement during the serving of this sentence, but it did expire on May 25, 1953. However, 9 months good and honor time was taken from him on July 23, 1952 for an attempt to escape from the Fort Pillow State Farm, having been transferred there from the Prison at Nashville on February 26, 1952. The expiration date of his sentence was then changed to February 25, 1954.

On August 16, 1953 he escaped from Fort Pillow, but was returned on July 21, 1954. This extended the expiration date of his sentence to January 30, 1955. He received an additional sentence of 1 to 3 years for this escape, the sentence being imposed on October 17, 1954 by the Criminal Court of Lauderdale County, and this sentence to commence at the expiration of his prior sentence, making the date of expiration of this sentence January 30, 1957.

He escaped again on October 17, 1955 and remained at large only 2 days, which, of course, were taken from him extending his expiration date to February 1, 1957.

On February 9, 1956 he received additional sentences of 3 to 10 years for burglary in the third degree, and 1 to 5 years for escaping from the Penitentiary. The 3 to 10 year sentence was to run concurrently with any sentences previously imposed. The 1 to 5 year sentence was to begin at the expiration of the 3 to 10 year sentence, this made a total of 4 to 15 years to run concurrently and absorbed the original sentence of 3 years under the Shelby County conviction, and the sentence of 1 to 3 years for escaping from Lauderdale County.

The result is that the sentence of from 4 to 15 years made this prisoner eligible for parole on September 9, 1958 and his sentence expired with good and honor time granted on September 9, 1964.

His record at the Penitentiary, which is part of the record in this case, clearly shows that he was

'* * * transferred to Brushy Mountain Prison, 9-22-56 and was Paroled May 15, 1958, he was declared delinquent June 19, 1958, returned as a parole violator September 2, 1958 with a new sentence of (3) three years for Burglary 3rd. degree imposed by Shelby County 8-20-58, lost 3 mos. & 17 days on parole and by orders of Parole Board and Code Section 40-3620 T.C.A. has to begin this sentence at expiration of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Allison v. State
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 29, 2018
    ...corpus proceeding is a collateral, civil proceeding to which there is no right to appointed counsel."); State ex rel. Hall v. Meadows , 215 Tenn. 668, 389 S.W.2d 256, 260 (1965) (declaring "[i]t has been repeatedly held that a habeas corpus proceeding is a civil proceeding" and, thus, the s......
  • Passarella v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 28, 1994
    ...Tenn. 494, 500, 398 S.W.2d 724, 726 (1965); Hall v. Heer, 217 Tenn. 392, 393-94, 398 S.W.2d 71 (1966); State ex rel. Hall v. Meadows, 215 Tenn. 668, 675, 389 S.W.2d 256, 259 (1965); State ex rel. Dickens v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 493, 498, 381 S.W.2d 287, 289 (1964); State ex rel. Grandstaff v. G......
  • State v. Hood, No. W2004-01678-CCA-R3-DD (TN 9/13/2005)
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • September 13, 2005
    ...Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S. Ct. 1057 (1970); Woodards v. Cardwell, 430 F.2d 978 (6th Cir. 1970); State ex rel. Hall v. Meadows, 215 Tenn. 668, 389 S.W.2d 256 (1965). Recently the United States Supreme Court revisited the propriety of shackling a defendant in a courtroom. See Deck......
  • State ex rel. Carroll v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 3, 1969
    ... ... Johnson v. Mainard, 188 Tenn. 501, 221 S.W.2d 531; State ex rel. Dych v. Bomar, 213 Tenn. 699, 378 S.W.2d 772; State ex rel ... Hall v. Meadows, 215 Tenn. 668, 389 S.W.2d 256; State ex rel. George v. Johnson, 217 Tenn. 1, 394 S.W.2d 641 ...         In his second Assignment ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT