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.

Rose v. Lindamood

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

June 25, 2018

DENNIS L. ROSE
v.
CHERRY LINDAMOOD, WARDEN

          Assigned on Briefs January 17, 2018

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County No. 15952 Robert L. Jones, Judge

         Following a jury trial in Sullivan County Criminal Court, Petitioner, Dennis L. Rose, was found guilty of first degree murder. The judgment shows that he was given a life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, State v. Dennis Lee Rose, No. E2010-00734-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 335548 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 1, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 21, 2012) (designated not for citation), Petitioner's request for post-conviction relief was also denied, and that judgment was also affirmed. Dennis L. Rose v. State, No. E2015-00768-CCA-R3-PC, 2016 WL 3215682 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 2, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016). Thereafter, Petitioner initiated this proceeding by filing his petition for habeas corpus relief. The petition was dismissed by the habeas corpus court, and Petitioner appealed. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

          Dennis L. Rose, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia Lee, Senior Counsel; and Brent A. Cooper, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Robert L. Holloway, Jr., and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE

         Petitioner alleges the following in his petition as the basis justifying habeas corpus relief:

The trial court lacked the jurisdictional authority to impose a [l]ife sentence with the possibility of parole for the offense of first[ ]degree murder, because the possibility of parole is not statutorily authorized and therefore renders his judgment void.

         The judgment, however, clearly sets punishment at "life," without the surplusage of "with possibility of parole" erroneously stated by the trial court at the time of sentencing. We agree with the habeas corpus court's conclusion that the trial court's misstatement at the time of sentencing did not render the judgment void. The trial court's erroneous statement that Petitioner asserts renders the judgment void is as follows:

[Petitioner], as to the jury finding you guilty in Count 1 of the indictment to the offense of premeditated first[ ]degree murder, it's the judgment of the Court you are guilty. Court sentences you to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. . . . So you're sentenced to life with the possibility of parole as to Count 1.

         The right to habeas corpus relief is available "only when 'it appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered' that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant's sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired." Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)). In contrast to a post-conviction petition, a habeas corpus petition is used to challenge void and not merely voidable judgments. Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 255-56. A voidable judgment is one that is facially valid and requires proof beyond the face of the record or judgment to establish its invalidity. Id. at 256; Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998). A void judgment "is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment." Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn.1999); Dykes, 978 S.W.2d at 529.

         A petitioner bears the burden of proving a void judgment or illegal confinement by a preponderance of the evidence. Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). A trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus without the appointment of counsel and without an evidentiary hearing if there is nothing on the face of the judgment to indicate that the convictions ...


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.