Douglas Kirkham, Jr. v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2004-02635-CCA-R3-HC

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; July 13, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Douglas Hayden Kirkham, Jr. appeals the summary dismissal of his habeas corpus petition by the Criminal Court for Sumner County, where he was convicted of robbery and sentenced to eight years as a Range II multiple offender. His habeas petition, filed pro se on September 29, 2004, raised claims including deficiencies in the indictment, an involuntary guilty plea, an illegal sentence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court dismissed the petition on October 5, 2004, citing a lack of merit in Kirkham’s claims.

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the trial court's decision, stating that habeas corpus relief in Tennessee is limited to cases involving void judgments or expired sentences. The burden of proof rests with the petitioner to demonstrate a jurisdictional defect in the original trial. The petitioner also failed to follow statutory procedures by filing his petition in the wrong county without providing justification, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-105. The court concludes that Kirkham has not established grounds for habeas relief and upholds the dismissal.

The trial court had the authority to dismiss the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to meet statutory requirements. Although it chose to dismiss based on the merits rather than procedural deficiencies, the dismissal was appropriate. The petitioner contended that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, citing coercion by counsel, lack of understanding of the charges and consequences, and unawareness of potential sentence enhancements. Challenges to the validity of a guilty plea are considered voidable, not void, and should be addressed through post-conviction relief rather than a habeas corpus petition.

The petitioner also claimed that the District Attorney failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, which requires proof beyond the record, making the judgment facially valid. Thus, this issue was also properly dismissed. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that his sentence was illegal for exceeding the statutory minimum without proven enhancement factors. However, his eight-year sentence for a Class C felony was within the legal range of six to ten years, confirming its legality.

Additionally, the petitioner asserted ineffective assistance of counsel due to various failures, which are also only cognizable through post-conviction relief. Consequently, all claims presented in the habeas corpus petition were correctly dismissed by the trial court.

The petitioner claims the indictment is fundamentally flawed, asserting it describes an offense involving violence or fear that did not occur. The supreme court has established that an indictment is constitutionally valid if it: (1) informs the accused of the charges; (2) allows the court to make a proper judgment; and (3) protects against double jeopardy. Additionally, the indictment must comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-13-202, requiring clear and concise language that allows a reasonable person to understand the offense, without unnecessary legal jargon. The indictment in this case specifies that the petitioner unlawfully took cash from Patricia Stewart on a specific date, referencing the relevant statute, thereby meeting constitutional and statutory standards. The petitioner was adequately notified of the charges, and the trial court had jurisdiction to proceed with judgment.

Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the trial court improperly dismissed his habeas corpus petition without appointing counsel. While there is no constitutional right to counsel in such proceedings, the court may appoint counsel if deemed necessary. The trial court can dismiss a habeas petition without a hearing or counsel if the underlying judgments are valid and the petition fails to present facts warranting relief. In this case, the trial court's dismissal was appropriate as the petitioner did not provide sufficient grounds for habeas relief. Consequently, the affirmation of the trial court's summary dismissal of the habeas petition is upheld.