Anthony Dodson v. Blair Leibach, Warden, M2016-000578-CCA-R3-HC

Anthony Dodson was convicted by a Shelby County jury of attempted first-degree murder (Class A felony) and sentenced to 25 years; direct appeal and post-conviction relief were previously denied.
Dodson filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his conviction on the ground that a separate count (count two, theft) had been dismissed and the indictment was not resubmitted to the grand jury.
He claimed the dismissal of count two divested the trial court of jurisdiction over count one because the grand jury indictment was allegedly altered or not returned as a true bill.
The habeas court summarily dismissed the petition, finding no authority requiring resubmission of remaining counts and that dismissal of one count does not void another valid conviction.
The State relied on Tenn. R. Crim. P. 48 (dismissal by the State with court permission) and precedent distinguishing void from voidable judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal of one count of a multi-count indictment voids jurisdiction over remaining counts	Dodson: dismissal of count two required resubmission to the grand jury; without resubmission, court lost jurisdiction and conviction is void	State/Trial Ct.: Rule 48 allows dismissal with court permission; no resubmission required; dismissal of one count does not void other counts	Held: Dismissal of one count does not render another conviction void; no resubmission required; petition dismissed
Whether the judgment is void on its face, permitting habeas relief	Dodson: judgment is void because indictment was allegedly altered after true bill status	State/Trial Ct.: judgment is facially valid and not void; habeas relief unavailable absent facial voidness	Held: Judgment is not void on its face; habeas corpus relief denied

Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (distinguishing void and voidable judgments and defining habeas-corpus scope)
Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (habeas relief limited to facially void judgments)
Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1998) (void vs. voidable judgment distinction)
Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999) (defining a void judgment as one rendered without jurisdiction)
Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2000) (petitioner bears burden to prove judgment void by preponderance)
Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16 (Tenn. 2004) (summary dismissal appropriate when record shows no facial voidness)
State v. Livingston, 197 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2006) (de novo review of habeas-corpus legal questions)
Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (affirming summary dismissal where record contains no indication of void conviction)