Alexander R. Carino v. State of Tennessee, M2017-00345-CCA-R3-HC

Background

Petitioner Alexander R. Carino pleaded guilty in 2010 to two counts of second‑degree murder (lesser included of first‑degree felony murder) and received consecutive effective sentences totaling 43 years at 100% service; an especially aggravated robbery count was dismissed as part of the plea.
He did not pursue direct appeal or post‑conviction relief. In 2017 he filed a habeas corpus petition asserting the convictions were void for lack of jurisdiction.
Carino argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because (1) the prosecution never obtained a grand‑jury indictment charging second‑degree murder (only felony murder), and (2) the predicate felony alleged was attempted especially aggravated robbery, which he claimed is not an enumerated predicate under the felony‑murder statute, and the independent especially aggravated robbery charge was dismissed.
The habeas court summarily denied relief, finding the petition lacked merit and that the trial court had jurisdiction; Carino appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the habeas dismissal de novo and considered whether the judgments were void (jurisdictional) or merely voidable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgments for second‑degree murder because no grand jury returned indictments charging second‑degree murder	Carino: prosecution needed to resubmit to grand jury or otherwise indict for second‑degree murder before court could enter judgment	State: second‑degree murder is a lesser included offense of the indicted felony murder; a plea to the lesser included offense does not require a new indictment and does not render the judgment void	Held: Judgment not void. Plea to lesser included offense is proper without resubmission; no jurisdictional defect shown.
Whether dismissal of the independent especially aggravated robbery charge deprived court of jurisdiction over homicide counts	Carino: dismissal of the predicate felony charge left felony‑murder counts without basis and deprived jurisdiction	State: prosecutor may charge the predicate felony independently but is not required to; dismissal of independent charge does not invalidate homicide counts or remove jurisdiction	Held: Dismissal did not affect jurisdiction; judgments remain valid.
Whether indictment was defective because it alleged attempted especially aggravated robbery (not enumerated in felony‑murder statute) and therefore failed to give notice	Carino: attempted especially aggravated robbery is not within the list in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39‑13‑202(a); indictment insufficient	State: alleging attempted especially aggravated robbery only increased State’s burden; it provided adequate notice and was legally sufficient to support plea and judgment	Held: Indictment provided sufficient notice; if State could prove attempted especially aggravated robbery it would necessarily prove attempted robbery; the counts were sufficient and not jurisdictionally defective.
Whether the defects alleged render the judgments void (habeas) versus voidable (post‑conviction)	Carino: defects deprived court of jurisdiction so habeas viable	State: alleged errors are at most voidable and require proof beyond the record; habeas inappropriate	Held: Claims do not show facial jurisdictional defect; judgments are not void; habeas relief denied.

Key Cases Cited

Tucker v. Morrow, 335 S.W.3d 116 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009) (habeas relief availability and standards)
Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (definition of void judgment for habeas relief)
Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005) (void judgment standard)
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (distinguishing void and voidable judgments)
Ritchie v. State, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000) (voidable judgment requires proof beyond record)
Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1998) (indictment challenges that may be raised at any time when they show lack of jurisdiction)
Yates v. Parker, 371 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012) (summary dismissal of habeas petition that fails to state cognizable claim)
Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. 2005) (standard of review for habeas corpus denials)
Davenport v. State, 980 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (petitioner’s burden to prove judgment void)
Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (post‑conviction as appropriate recourse for nonjurisdictional defects)