Michael J. Floyd v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
Docket: M2008-00409-CCA-R3-HC
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; January 12, 2009; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Michael J. Floyd, pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his habeas corpus petition by the Wayne County Circuit Court, challenging the legality of his aggravated robbery conviction and sentence based on an involuntary guilty plea. Floyd claims he was promised lenient treatment, leading to an eight-year probation sentence, which was later amended to a custodial sentence without a probation violation finding. Tennessee law allows for habeas corpus relief only if a judgment is void or if a sentence has expired. The court noted the petitioner must prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The appeal faced potential dismissal for filing late; however, Floyd argued he did not receive timely notice of the dismissal. The court highlighted that while timely filing is usually required, it may waive the requirement for the sake of justice. Ultimately, the court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court has determined to waive the timely filing requirement for the notice of appeal due to the petitioner’s pro se status and the brief delay in filing, citing the interest of justice. However, the substantive claims raised in the petition are not sufficient for habeas corpus relief. Allegations regarding the voluntariness of a guilty plea are deemed voidable but not void, thus not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding. Additionally, the petition cannot be classified as a request for post-conviction relief due to its filing past the one-year statute of limitations. The petitioner claims that the judgment dated July 12, 2006, correctly stated his guilty plea to aggravated robbery and stipulated an eight-year probationary sentence, while an amended judgment from July 18, 2006, erroneously mandated confinement. The court found no evidence that the July 18 judgment was void, and the record indicates that the guilty plea documentation confirms the sentence was to be served in custody. As such, the court upheld the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition, affirming its judgment.