Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Charlie M. Gardner v. Tony Parker, Warden
Citation: Not availableDocket: M2005-01924-CCA-R3-HC
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; January 16, 2006; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Charlie M. Gardner appeals the summary dismissal of his habeas corpus petition by the Davidson County Circuit Court, which was presided over by Judge Monte Watkins. Gardner, convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life without parole on July 23, 1999, filed his petition in May 2004, claiming several grounds for relief. These included assertions that the facts did not support his conviction, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, the constitutionality of the first degree murder statute under the Tennessee Constitution, and allegations of discriminatory punishment in violation of federal statutes. In his appeal, Gardner raised specific issues regarding the legality of the murder statute, the trial court's jurisdiction to impose a life sentence without parole without jury approval, the adequacy of the trial court's fact-finding process as per U.S. Supreme Court standards, and the failure to charge the jury with lesser included offenses. The court found the trial court's judgment to be proper and noted that the sentence had not expired. It highlighted that the right to habeas corpus relief is guaranteed under the Tennessee Constitution, but such relief is limited to challenges against void judgments or expired sentences. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Gardner's petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the petition did not warrant relief based on its face. Petitioner's argument that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202 violates Article II, section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution is rejected. This constitutional provision mandates that legislative bills must address a single subject, clearly stated in the title, and applies only to bills introduced in the General Assembly. It is established that codification of legislation rectifies any caption defects, as supported by State v. Chastain. Furthermore, the issues raised by the Petitioner, if valid, would only result in a voidable judgment, not a void one. Habeas corpus relief is only applicable when a judgment is void or a sentence is expired. The State's motion for affirmance under Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals is upheld, indicating that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief. The trial court's judgment, made in a non-jury proceeding, is affirmed, with no legal errors evident in the record.