Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs November 8, 2016.
from the Circuit Court for Trousdale County No. 16-CV-4528
John D. Wootten, Jr., Judge
Mack Transou, appeals the summary dismissal of his fifth pro
se petition for habeas corpus relief. In 1999, Petitioner
pleaded guilty to driving after being declared a habitual
motor vehicle offender and was subsequently incarcerated.
Based on a blood sample taken from Petitioner as part of the
intake process, Petitioner was later convicted, in two
separate cases, of two counts of rape, one count of sexual
battery, and one count of aggravated burglary. In this
appeal, Petitioner argues that the habeas corpus court erred
in summarily dismissing his petition. Following a review of
the record, we conclude that Petitioner is collaterally
estopped from challenging the validity of his blood draw.
None of Petitioner's other claims state a cognizable
claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the
court's denial of relief.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Transou, Hartsville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Robert
W. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General; and Tom P. Thompson,
Jr., District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
T. Woodall, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Alan E. Glenn and Robert W. Wedemeyer, JJ., joined.
T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE.
1999, Petitioner, Mack Transou, pleaded guilty to driving
after being declared a habitual motor vehicle offender and
received a two-year sentence with all but 90 days to be
served on Community Corrections. "During intake
processing at the prison, [the petitioner] signed a consent
form and submitted to a blood draw. A DNA analysis was
performed and the results were submitted to CODIS."
Mack Transou v. Jerry Lester, Warden, No.
W2013-00293-CCA-R3-HC, 2013 WL 5745704, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App., Oct. 21, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Jan.
14, 2014). Petitioner's DNA profile matched profiles
developed from two unsolved rape crimes reported in 2001 and
2002, and Petitioner was charged in two separate cases.
Id. Petitioner was convicted of two counts of rape,
one count of sexual battery, and one count of aggravated
burglary. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of his
blood draw on direct appeal. Id. The Tennessee
Supreme Court found that Petitioner "validly consented
to the blood draw and its subsequent analysis."
State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 622-23 (Tenn.
this point, the petitioner began filing multiple pleadings
and motions in which he consistently asserted that his DNA
profile had been unlawfully obtained." Transou,
2013 WL 5745704, at *1. In 2005, Petitioner filed his first
petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that "the
convictions for which he was currently confined were obtained
as a result of the illegal action of the Department of
Correction in obtaining the blood sample used to identify him
as the perpetrator of the crimes in the later cases" and
that his 1999 conviction for driving after being declared a
habitual motor vehicle offender was illegal based upon a
revocation of the probated portion of his sentence.
Id. (citing Mack Transou v. State, No.
W2005-01935-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 561401, at *2 (Tenn. Crim.
App., Mar. 7, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn., May
30, 2006)). The trial court denied Petitioner's request
for relief, and a panel of this court affirmed. Id.
filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus relief in
2008. Transou, 2013 WL 5745704, at *3 (citing
Mack Transou v. State, No. W2008-02713-CCA-R3-HC,
2009 WL 1956826, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., July 9, 2009),
perm. app. denied (Tenn., Oct. 26, 2009)). The trial
court dismissed the petition in part because Petitioner
attempted to relitigate his DNA blood draw claim.
Id. A panel of this court affirmed the trial
court's dismissal, stating that Petitioner's
"argument that the collection of his DNA was improper or
unconstitutional had been previously adjudicated to be
without merit." Id. The panel also determined
that the admissibility of DNA evidence rendered a judgment
voidable, not void, and did not constitute a ground for
habeas corpus relief. Id.
filed a third petition for writ of habeas corpus relief in
2012. Transou, 2013 WL 5745704, at *3 (citing
Mack Transou v. Dwight Barbee, Warden, No.
W2012-00258-CCA-R3-HC, 2012 WL 1813115, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim.
App., May 17, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Sept.
19, 2012)). In that petition, Petitioner alleged that the
judgments regarding the probation revocation proceedings in
1999 and 2000 were illegal and void and that the State
violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to DNA
testing. Id. The trial court dismissed the petition,
in part, because the petition again raised issues previously
determined. Id. A panel of this court affirmed the
dismissal of the petition. Id.
filed a fourth petition for writ of habeas corpus in late
2012. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition.
Transou, 2013 WL 5745704, at *4. ...