Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs October 25, 2016 at Knoxville
from the Circuit Court for Wayne County No. 15872 Robert L.
William Reynolds, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; M.
Todd Ridley, Assistant Attorney General; Brent Cooper,
District Attorney General; and Jonathan Davis, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
L. Holloway, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which James Curwood Witt, Jr., and J. Ross Dyer, JJ., joined.
L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE
and Procedural Background
Petitioner was indicted on September 10, 2014, by the Giles
County Grand Jury. The record on appeal contains only a copy
of the back of the indictment which states the Petitioner is
indicted for "sale of cocaine, [S]ch[edule] II in an
amount of less than .5 grams within a drug[-]free school zone
F-C." Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement,
the Petitioner pleaded guilty to sale of cocaine, Schedule
II, in an amount of .5 grams or more, a Class B felony, and
was sentenced by the trial court to twelve years to be served
in the Department of Correction.
judgment of conviction, the "Offender Status" is
checked for "Persistent" and the "Release
Eligibility" is checked for "Career 60%."
Typed in the "Special Conditions" box of the
judgment is the following: "Credit for time served. The
defendant is agreeing to plea outside the range. It is a
total sentence of 12 years to be served as Range III with 60%
eligibility[.]" In the same box below the typed comment,
the following is handwritten: "A knowing and voluntary
plea waives any irregularity as to offender classification or
release eligibility. Hicks v. State 945 S.W.2d
Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in
which he claimed that he was "restrained of his liberty
by virtue of a void judgment which is facially invalid
because the court lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment
because Petitioner's sentence was imposed in direct
contravention to T.C.A. § 39-17-417(a)(3) [and]
(c)(2)(A)." The State filed a motion to summarily
dismiss the petition, and the habeas corpus court granted the
motion without a hearing.
appeal, the Petitioner presents one issue:
The indictment is insufficient because it charged the
[Petitioner] with sale of cocaine, [S]chedule II in an amount
less than .5 grams within a drug[-] free school zone rather
than sale of cocaine, [S]chedule II in an amount more than
[.]5 grams within a drug[-]free school zone.
Petitioner claims that the indictment did not put him on
notice of the charge against him and that the judgment is
void and that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to
enter the void judgment. The State claims that the judgment
is not void, that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter