Christopher Mimms v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01016-CCA-R3-HC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Christopher Mimms was convicted of two counts of selling 0.5 grams or more of cocaine (one in a school zone); convictions affirmed on direct appeal and post-conviction review.
- In March 2016 Mimms filed a pro se habeas corpus petition claiming the trial court constructively amended the indictment and that the indictment failed to give notice of the theory on which the jury convicted.
- The habeas court summarily dismissed the petition, finding Mimms failed to show the convicting court lacked jurisdiction and that many claims belonged on direct appeal.
- On appeal Mimms argued the constructive amendment rendered his judgment void; the State argued the petition failed procedural requirements and did not present habeas-appropriate claims.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed de novo and focused on whether the petition showed a void (not merely voidable) judgment and whether statutory habeas procedures were followed.
- The court affirmed dismissal because Mimms omitted the indictment from the record (violating T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)), a fatal procedural defect when the challenge depends on the indictment’s language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a constructive amendment to the indictment rendered the judgment void | Mimms: trial court charged jury on alternative theories not in indictment; lack of notice made conviction void | State: claim is procedural/merits-based and does not show a void judgment; petitioner failed to meet habeas procedural requirements | Petition dismissed; no habeas relief because indictment not in record and claim did not establish a facially void judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2007) (standard of review for habeas corpus is a question of law; de novo review)
- Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (habeas procedures are mandatory; summary dismissal appropriate when record shows no voidness)
- Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999) (distinguishing void from voidable judgments)
- Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (habeas relief limited to judgments that are facially invalid for lack of jurisdiction or expired sentence)
- State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000) (proof beyond the record makes a judgment voidable, not void)