Jeffrey Miller appealed the dismissal of his petitions for a writ of error coram nobis and a writ of habeas corpus by the Meigs County Criminal Court. Miller contended that he was wrongfully serving his felony sentences in the Department of Correction instead of the Meigs County Jail as specified in his plea agreements. The court found that neither form of relief was appropriate for his claims, which were deemed factually unfounded, and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Miller had previously pleaded guilty to burglary and theft, resulting in concurrent four-year sentences, and to aggravated burglary and theft with concurrent three-year sentences, both to be served consecutively to each other. After a hearing, the court ordered his incarceration in the Department of Correction, but he initially remained in the Meigs County Jail until he escaped in May 1997. Upon recapture, he returned briefly to the county jail before being transferred to the Department of Correction. He later pleaded guilty to escape, receiving an additional year in prison.
In his petitions, Miller claimed he was “resentenced” to the Department of Correction without a hearing after his escape, arguing that his plea agreements mandated confinement in the county jail. During the hearing, he contradicted himself about whether his judgments had been "altered" and ultimately conceded there was no written agreement for county jail service. The trial court denied his petitions, and Miller appealed, asserting that the lack of a hearing for his "resentencing" warranted modification under state law and that his plea agreements were void due to his transfer. The court's analysis focused on the nature of the petitions filed by Miller.
A writ of error coram nobis can be granted if a defendant demonstrates they were not at fault for failing to present new evidence that could have changed the trial's outcome. In this case, the petitioner’s claims do not qualify for such relief, as he is not introducing new evidence and did not undergo a trial, which is necessary for coram nobis claims. Habeas corpus relief is available for void judgments or expired sentences; however, the petitioner does not claim his sentence is expired. His assertion that the judgment altered a plea agreement from three years to five years is regarded as a voidable, rather than void, issue. Consequently, neither the coram nobis nor habeas corpus petitions were valid, leading to their dismissal by the lower court. Additionally, the state argued that the petitions were untimely, but the lack of cognizable claims made this determination unnecessary. The petitioner failed to substantiate his claims regarding his incarceration terms, with his uncorroborated testimony contradicted by official transcripts. The court also found that the claims did not qualify under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, which has a 120-day limit for addressing motions to correct or reduce sentences. Lastly, the petitioner’s request for the trial court to modify his sentences was rejected, as the court lacked jurisdiction since he was sentenced to the Department of Correction. Thus, the dismissal by the Meigs County Criminal Court is affirmed.
