Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. State

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

September 11, 2014

HERBERT N. JACKSON
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

July 22, 2014 Session

Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission No. T20120909 Nancy Miller-Herron, Commissioner, TN. Claims Commission (Western Division)

Andrew Pate, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Herbert N. Jackson.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Joseph F. Whalen, Acting Solicitor General; Joseph Ahillen, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Kenny W. Armstrong, SP., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which J. Steven Stafford, J., and W. Neal McBrayer, J., joined.

MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]

KENNY W. ARMSTRONG, SPECIAL JUDGE

The case began when Appellant, Herbert Jackson, filed a pro se claim against the Appellee State of Tennessee in the Tennessee Claims Commission.[2] In his claim, Mr. Jackson sought money damages for alleged sentencing errors made by the Madison County Circuit Court. Claimant also raised allegations regarding medical treatment that he received in prison, and further alleged that he was injured by the prison footwear.

The alleged sentencing errors were related to Mr. Jackson's felony conviction in Madison County. On September 11, 2006, Mr. Jackson entered a plea of guilty to theft of property valued at $1, 000 or more but less than $10, 000, and the Madison County Circuit Court imposed a sentence of four years, to be served as 11 months and 29 days' incarceration followed by community corrections. See Jackson v. Parker, 366 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). The trial court awarded Mr. Jackson 251 days of pretrial jail credit, which reflected his incarceration from January 3, 2006, to September 11, 2006. Id. at 188. On December 4, 2009, a community corrections violation warrant issued, alleging that Mr. Jackson had failed to comply with the terms of his release by testing positive for cocaine on November 30, 2009, and by failing to pay court costs. Id. Mr. Jackson was arrested that same day. A second violation warrant issued on January 11, 2010, and added an allegation that Mr. Jackson tested positive for cocaine on December 18, 2009. Id. Mr. Jackson was arrested pursuant to the violation warrant on January 11, 2010. Id.

Based upon the foregoing violations, on January 25, 2010, the trial court, using a form "order" that permitted the court to simply check certain boxes, revoked Mr. Jackson's community corrections sentence and checked those boxes requiring him to "serve [the] original sentence imposed" subject to "credit for time served on above referenced case[ ]." Jackson, 366 S.W.3d at 188. The trial court apparently did not enter a new conviction judgment that included a calculation of jail and community corrections credits following the revocation. Id. On June 8, 2010, Mr. Jackson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the sentence imposed by the trial court following the revocation of his community corrections was illegal because the trial court failed to award him statutorily-mandated credit for the time he actually served on community corrections. Id. In addition, Mr. Jackson claimed that, taking into account all applicable credits, his four-year sentence had expired. Id. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding that Mr. Jackson had failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, and had failed to establish that his sentence had expired. Id. The court also concluded that Mr. Jackson had failed to attach to his petition sufficient documentation to support his claims. Id. Mr. Jackson then filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rules 7.02 and 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, essentially asking the court to reconsider its earlier decisions. Id. The habeas corpus court denied the motion, concluding that the Mr. Jackson's claims, even if true, would render the judgment "voidable" rather than void. Id.

In Jackson, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the habeas court's decision. Jackson, 366 S.W.3d at 192. Specifically, the appellate court held that Mr. Jackson's sentence had expired and that he was entitled to immediate release. Id. The court directed the circuit court "to file an amended judgment reflecting appropriate application of earned community corrections credits." Id.

In the Claims Commission, Mr. Jackson has asserted that, upon remand, the circuit court imposed a probationary sentence. Specifically, he claims that, due to the sentencing errors, he "spent another 13-14 months reporting to the Madison County Probation [and] Parole, all of which according to the Appeals Court was illegal." In response to Mr. Jackson's claim, the State moved for dismissal under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In support of its motion, the State raised the circuit court's judicial immunity as a defense. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(d) ("The state may assert any and all defenses, including common law defenses, which would have been available to the officer or employee in an action against such an individual based upon the same occurrence.").[3] Specifically, the State asserted that judicial immunity precluded any liability for the sentencing errors.

Although Mr. Jackson filed his claim pro se, while the State's motion to dismiss was pending, he retained counsel, and then filed a response to the State's motion. The response argued that judicial immunity did not apply to the probationary sentence imposed by the circuit court upon remand.[4] In his response, Mr. Jackson alleged that the circuit court acted "in the clear absence of jurisdiction when it ordered additional probation following Claimant's successful petition for writ of habeas corpus."

On November 7, 2012, the Claims Commission issued an order, granting in part and denying in part the State's motion to dismiss. In its order, the Commission found that the circuit court's judicial immunity precluded any liability for the alleged sentencing errors, finding that the circuit court "acted merely in excess of [its] jurisdiction and not outside of it." The Claims Commission further stated: "The Tennessee Claims Commission statute simply does not contain any provision that authorizes suits against the State for actions of judicial officials acting in their judicial capacity." Accordingly, the Commission dismissed Mr. Jackson's claims concerning the prison's medical treatment because Mr. Jackson had not complied with the requirements for healthcare-liability actions under Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 29-26-121, -122. The Commission denied the motion to dismiss with regard to Mr. Jackson's allegation that "he suffered personal injury related to defective or negligently issued prison footwear.

On December 6, 2012, Mr. Jackson filed a notice of appeal from the Commission's November 7, 2012 order. At the time of the filing of the December 6, 2012 notice of appeal, Mr. Jackson's prison footwear claim was still pending. On March 14, 2013, this Court entered a stipulation of dismissal of the December 6, 2012 appeal, stating that the parties had "agreed to proceed with such claims as survived [the Commission's November 7, 2012 Order] before proceeding with the appeal." After the initial appeal (which was commenced with the filing of the December 6, 2013 notice of appeal) was dismissed, Mr. Jackson chose to dismiss, with prejudice, the remaining claim regarding the prison footwear.[5] This was reflected in an order of voluntary dismissal, which was entered on September 23, 2013; it is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.