Robert Payne v. State of Tennessee ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                  IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE
    Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2006
    ROBERT DALLIS PAYNE V. RICKY J. BELL, WARDEN
    Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court of Davidson County
    No. 3706 Steve R. Dozier, Judge
    M2006-00048-CCA-R3-HC - Filed September 22, 2006
    Petitioner Robert Dallis Payne was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree murder and
    received a sentence of life in prison. On December 2, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for a Writ of
    Habeas Corpus in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. On December 8, 2005 the trial court
    dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, petitioner contends that the trial
    court erred in failing to grant his petition for habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the
    judgment of the trial court.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the
    Criminal Court Affirmed
    J. S. DANIEL, Sr.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS and ALAN
    E. GLENN , JJ., joined.
    Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Blind Akrawi, Assistant Attorney General; and
    Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General, for appellee, State of Tennessee.
    Douglas A. Trant, Knoxville, Tennessee, Attorney for the appellant, Robert Dallis Payne.
    OPINION
    BACKGROUND
    In July 1988, while incarcerated for the murder of his mother, petitioner had a confrontation
    with Paul Steward, another inmate at the Turney Center. As a result of the ensuing fight, Payne killed
    Steward. The facts of that homicide are best summarized by the court in the direct appeal of State
    v. Payne, No. 01-C-019003CR00088, 1991WL 135005 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 24, 1991)( perm. to
    app. denied January 6, 1992):
    On July 3, 1998, the defendant and his victim, Paul Steward, both inmates at
    Turney Center, were involved in a fight which left Stewart dead.
    The defendant had shared a room with the victim until a few days prior to the
    fight, at which time the victim’s television ceased working. Other inmates teased the
    victim about the television in an effort to make the victim angry at the defendant for
    breaking the TV. On July 3, 1988, the victim met the defendant in the hall, and the
    victim hit the defendant. A fight ensued between the victim, who weighed 157
    pounds, and the defendant, who weighed 208 pounds.
    The defendant quickly overpowered the victim, forced him to the floor and
    strangled him. The defendant continued to hold the victim down for at least three
    minutes, during which time the victim had ceased his assault upon the defendant and
    only struggled to get free. When other inmates attempted to stop the defendant from
    further choking the victim, the defendant stated that he had to kill the victim. When
    the victim became still, the defendant slammed the victim’s head on the floor and
    started to walk away. He returned and spit on the victim’s face, cursing him. The
    victim was later pronounced dead, and the medical examiner determined the cause
    of death to be the aspiration of gastric contents as a result of manual strangulation.
    The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on December 2, 2005, alleged
    that petitioner was being illegally restrained as a result of a void conviction for first
    degree murder by the Hickman County Criminal Court. In his petition, petitioner first
    contended that his conviction was void because new scientific evidence would show
    he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and therefore, was incapable of
    formulating the necessary intent for first degree murder. This "new scientific
    evidence" surfaced through the efforts of his attorney in obtaining an evaluation and
    report from Dr. Michael Buckner, a clinical psychologist. Petitioner’s second ground
    for relief is that newly discovered evidence, via the testimony of Dr. Jonathan
    Lipman, demonstrated that the victim was not properly receiving the antipsychotic
    drug, Merraril. As a result of inconsistent doses of said drug, the victim would
    become easily agitated. Petitioner claimed he could have used this testimony to
    support his claim that the victim had been the aggressor.
    On appeal, petitioner maintains the trial court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition
    without an evidentiary hearing.
    ANALYSIS
    The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus provides that any person in prison or restrained of
    their liberty may inquire into the reason for such imprisonment and restraint. Tenn. Code Ann. §
    29-21-101. The purpose of the Writ is to obtain immediate relief from illegal confinement and to
    liberate those who may be confined without sufficient cause and deliver them from unlawful
    custody. State ex rel Brown v. Newell, 
    216 Tenn. 284
    ; 
    391 S.W.2d 667
     (1965). The primary
    purpose of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is to test the legality of the imprisonment or restraint of the
    2
    individual. State v. Warren, 
    740 S.W.2d 427
     (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).
    Habeas corpus relief is proper if the petitioner demonstrates that the challenged judgment
    is void as opposed to merely voidable. Taylor v. State, 
    995 S.W.2d 78
    , 83 (Tenn. 1999). A
    judgment is void 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." State v. Ritchie, 
    20 S.W.3d 624
    , 630 (Tenn. 2000). It is the petitioner’s burden to
    establish by preponderance of the evidence that a judgment is void or the term of imprisonment
    has expired. State ex rel Kuntz v. Bomar, 
    214 Tenn. 500
    , 504; 
    381 S.W.2d 290
    , 291-92 (1994).
    Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-107 sets forth the formal requirements of an
    application for a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. They are as follows:
    (a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, signed by the party for
    whose benefit it is intended, or some person on the petitioner’s behalf, and
    verified by affidavit.
    (b) The petition shall state:
    (1) That the person in whose behalf the writ is sought, is illegally restrained of
    liberty, and the person by whom and place where restrained, mentioning the name of
    such person, if known, and, if unknown, describing the person with as much
    particularity as practicable;
    (2) The cause or pretense of such restraint according to the best information of the
    applicant, and if it be by virtue of any legal process, a copy thereof shall be annexed,
    or a satisfactory reason given for its absence;
    (3) That the legality of the restraint has not already been adjudged upon a prior
    proceeding of the same character, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge and belief;
    and
    (4) That it is first application for the writ, or, if a previous application has been made,
    a copy of the petition and proceedings thereon shall be produced, or satisfactory
    reasons be given for the failure so to do.
    Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-107.
    A initial review of Payne’s petition reveals that he failed to attach a copy of the judgment he
    is now attacking. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus may be dismissed when the formalities
    established by the statute have not been met. See Hickman v. State, 
    153 S.W.3d 16
    , 21 (Tenn. 2004).
    Although the petition fails to meet the technical statutory requirements, this Court will
    examine the merits of the claims contained in the petition. In the instant case, petitioner was
    3
    convicted of first degree murder. At that time, the two possible punishments were death or
    imprisonment for life. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(b)(1989). Here, the petitioner was sentenced
    to imprisonment for life. This sentence is a valid sentence under the Sentencing Act in place at the
    time petitioner was convicted and has not expired.
    Because petitioner’s sentence has not expired, the only remaining possible ground for relief
    is that the judgment is void as opposed to voidable. In order to prevail on such a claim, petitioner
    must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Hickman County Court lacked jurisdiction.
    Petitioner makes no such challenge. Instead, he is essentially claiming the judgment is voidable due
    to this new evidence. However, this new "scientific evidence" being advanced in support of his
    petition was available at the time of the conviction. Habeas corpus relief is not available for such a
    purpose.
    Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-109 authorizes the trial court to dismiss such a
    petition without a hearing if the Petition for Habeas Corpus fails to demonstrate the judgment is void
    on its face. An evidentiary hearing is not warranted if evidence of a lack of jurisdiction does not
    appear on the face of the judgment or in the record of the underlying case. State v. Ritchie, 
    20 S.W.3d 624
    , 631-31 (Tenn. 2000).
    We conclude the petition failed to establish on its face that the judgment was void.
    Petitioner’s claims, even if true, would render the judgment voidable. Such grounds are not
    cognizable under a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, the trial court was within its
    authority in dismissing this petition without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the
    judgment of the trial court.
    JOSEPH S. DANIEL, SENIOR JUDGE
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M2006-00048-CCA-R3-HC

Judges: Senior Judge J. S. Steve Daniel

Filed Date: 9/22/2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014