Taylor v. Watwood
| Docket Number | W2023-01169-CCA-R3-HC |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2024 |
| Parties | CRAIG MARKEEM TAYLOR v. BRANDON WATWOOD, WARDEN |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Assigned on Briefs January 3, 2024
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County No. 23-CR-10932 Mark L. Hayes, Judge
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
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
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.
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, 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial