Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2018
from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County No. CC-17-CR-102
Joe H. Walker, III, Judge
se Petitioner, Demond Hughes Gunn, appeals the summary
dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Hughes Gunn, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; David
H. Findley, Senior Counsel; for the appellee, State of
E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
John Everett Williams and Camille R. McMullen, JJ., joined.
E. GLENN, JUDGE
2012, the Petitioner pled guilty in the Shelby County
Criminal Court to especially aggravated robbery, aggravated
robbery, and aggravated rape in exchange for an effective
sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of
Correction. His subsequent post-conviction petition based on
ineffective assistance of counsel was denied, and this court
affirmed the judgment of the post-conviction court. See
Demond Hughes v. State, No. W2016-00414-CCA-R3-PC, 2017
WL 1290850, at * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 6, 2017).
2, 2017, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in which he alleged that he was entitled to habeas
corpus relief because counts three and four of the indictment
failed to name the victim, whose identity is an essential
element of aggravated rape.
8, 2017, the habeas court entered an order summarily
dismissing the petition on the grounds that the Petitioner
failed to attach a copy of the indictment or the judgments.
The Petitioner then filed a motion to supplement the record,
accompanied by copies of the judgments and indictment. On
June 28, 2017, the habeas corpus court entered another order
of summary dismissal in which it noted that someone had
apparently "blacked out" the name of the victim on
the copy of the indictment the Petitioner attached to his
motion to supplement the record. The court further noted that
"defenses and objections based on a defective
indictment" are generally waived if not raised prior to
trial and concluded that the Petitioner was not entitled to
habeas corpus relief. This appeal followed.
well-established in Tennessee that the remedy provided by a
writ of habeas corpus is limited in scope and may only be
invoked where the judgment is void or the petitioner's
term of imprisonment has expired. Faulkner v. State,
226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007); State v. Ritchie,
20 S.W.3d 624, 629 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Davenport,
980 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). A void, as
opposed to a voidable, judgment is "one that is facially
invalid because the court did not have the statutory
authority to render such judgment." Summers v.
State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tenn. 2007) (citing
Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998)).
A challenge to the sufficiency of an ...