Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
WALTER JR. SHEGOG
STATE OF TENNESSEE
from the Circuit Court for Trousdale County No. 2016-CV-4557
Walter Jr. Shegog, appeals the trial court's summary
denial of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The
State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant
to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court
Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal
Jr. Shegog, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.
Timothy L. Easter, J. delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J. and Robert W. Wedemeyer, J.
TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE.
is appealing the trial court's order denying his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. The record and Appellant's
brief have been filed. In response, the State has filed a
motion to dismiss because Appellant did not timely file a
notice of appeal. In the alternative, the State moves to
affirm the ruling of the trial court pursuant to Court of
Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
response, Appellant requests waiver of the deadline for
filing notice of appeal. Appellant states that he did not
receive a copy of the trial court order denying his habeas
corpus petition in time to file notice of appeal within
thirty days. Upon review, and in the interest of justice, the
Court hereby waives the thirty-day deadline for filing notice
of appeal and accepts the notice of appeal filed by Appellant
on December 30, 2016. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a).
was convicted of theft of property and received a twelve-year
sentence as a career offender. This Court affirmed the
judgment. State v. Walter Shegog, No.
W2014-02440-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 12978195, at *5 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Oct. 13, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb.
19, 2016). One of the issues raised by Appellant on appeal
was that the Shelby County Criminal Court lacked territorial
jurisdiction to impose the judgment because the offense
occurred on federal property. This Court found that issue to
be without merit:
Initially, we note that the defendant did not present any
proof to support his claim that the parking lot of the V.A.
Hospital was federal property such that the federal
government had exclusive jurisdiction of any offense
committed there. See Massengale v. Mills, 826 S.W.2d
122, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) ("The burden is on the
appellant to show that the federal government had exclusive
jurisdiction where the evidence does not clearly show the
offense was committed on land reserved exclusively to the
U.S. Government."). Additionally, the statute cited by
the defendant, 38 U.S.C. § 902, does not discuss the
territorial jurisdiction of crimes committed in the V.A.
Hospital parking lot. That statute deals with the
jurisdiction of police officers within the Veteran's
Administration. Finally, although the initial taking of the
victim's car occurred in the parking lot of the V.A.
Hospital, that offense was consummated when the defendant
exercised control over the car beyond the point at which the
victim had given him permission to do so, such as when he
pulled out of the parking lot and drove to the Office Max and
then to his house with the intent to deprive the victim of
the vehicle. See State v. Legg, 9 S.W.3d 111, 115
(Tenn. 1999). In consequence, the defendant is not entitled
to relief on this issue.
Walter Shegog, 2015 WL 12978195 at *3.
asserted that same issue as the sole ground for relief in his
habeas corpus petition. Although he attempted to correct the
shortcoming alluded to by this Court by attaching
documentation to his petition which purportedly shows that
the parking lot of the V.A. Hospital is on federal land, the
trial court correctly held that Appellant is not otherwise
entitled to habeas corpus relief. Citing this Court's
opinion on direct appeal, the trial court held the judgment
of conviction in this case is not void for want of
jurisdiction. As noted above, this Court has already
dispatched the argument advanced by Appellant in his habeas
corpus petition. Accordingly, that determination is binding
in this proceeding. See State v. Jefferson, 31
S.W.3d 558, 560-61 (Tenn. 2000) (discussing law of the case
doctrine). Moreover, to the extent Appellant raises issues
for the first time in his brief on appeal, they must be
considered waived. State v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 346,
356-57 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
review of the issues presented by Appellant in this appeal
and the record as a whole, the Court hereby grants the
State's motion to affirm pursuant to Rule 20.
Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court is ...