Billy Debow v. State of Tennessee, M2016-00753-CCA-R3-HC

In 1999 a Sumner County jury convicted Billy DeBow of first-degree (premeditated) murder and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
DeBow pursued post-conviction relief unsuccessfully; a later attempt to reopen or obtain a delayed appeal was dismissed for untimeliness in 2009.
An amended judgment was filed June 28, 1999, correcting the original judgment; DeBow later obtained a second amended judgment on July 1, 2013 reflecting life imprisonment and awarding pretrial jail credit.
DeBow filed a habeas corpus petition (Feb. 18, 2016) arguing the June 28, 1999 amended judgment was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to change a sentence from "life without parole" to "life" after finality.
The habeas court summarily denied relief, finding the June 28, 1999 entry corrected a clerical error and noting the June 28, 1999 judgment was superseded by the 2013 amended judgment.
DeBow appealed but filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days after entry of the habeas denial; the State argued the appeal was untimely and waiver of the filing deadline was not warranted.

Issue	DeBow's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the June 28, 1999 amended judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction because it changed sentence from "life without parole" to "life" after finality	The June 28, 1999 judgment is void because the court lacked jurisdiction to amend the sentence after the judgment became final	The amended judgment corrected a clerical error or was entered while the court retained jurisdiction (motion for new trial pending); thus it is not void	Court agreed with State: amended entry corrected clerical error / court retained jurisdiction; judgment not void
Whether DeBow complied with statutory venue requirements for filing a habeas petition	Petition was properly filed in the trial court	Petitioner failed to file in the court most convenient to his place of incarceration and gave no reason for not doing so, violating T.C.A. § 29-21-105	Court held petitioner failed to satisfy venue statute; summary dismissal would be appropriate on this ground
Whether the late-filed notice of appeal should be excused in the interest of justice	Waiver of the notice deadline is warranted because justice requires review	Timely filing rule should not be waived because of procedural defects and absence of a void judgment currently in effect	Court declined to waive the timely-notice requirement; appeal dismissed
Standard of review for habeas corpus dismissal	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Review is de novo for habeas-corpus legal questions (court applied this standard)

Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2007) (standard of review for habeas corpus is de novo)
Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 2000) (habeas corpus principles)
Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 205 S.W.3d 406 (Tenn. 2006) (de novo review guidance)
Ussery v. Avery, 432 S.W.2d 656 (Tenn. 1968) (habeas corpus statutory history and limits)
Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (void vs. voidable convictions; jurisdictional defects)
Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (void judgment doctrine)
State ex rel. Anglin v. Mitchell, 575 S.W.2d 284 (Tenn. 1979) (jurisdictional integrity and void judgments)
State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 424 S.W.2d 186 (Tenn. 1968) (habeas corpus contests void judgments)