David Hearing v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden, M2016-02114-CCA-R3-HC

In 2005 David Hearing pled guilty to two counts of first-degree felony murder as part of a plea agreement described as "life with the possibility of parole;" the trial court advised he would serve at least 51 years before consideration for parole.
Hearing repeatedly challenged his sentences post-conviction: motions to withdraw pleas, post-conviction relief, habeas petitions, coram nobis, and Rule 36.1 petitions, advancing the claim that the judgments were void because they reflected life sentences while the plea had promised parole eligibility.
Multiple courts (trial and appellate) previously considered and rejected Hearing’s arguments, concluding his judgments were not void and that the phrase "life with parole" did not render the judgments facially invalid.
The habeas corpus court dismissed the instant habeas petition, finding the issue already decided and the life sentences lawful; Hearing appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed de novo whether the sentences were void on the face of the record and affirmed the dismissal, concluding the sentences were not illegal and habeas relief was not warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judgments are void because trial court lacked authority to impose "life with possibility of parole" for felony murder	Hearing: plea included parole eligibility and the court could not lawfully impose "life" sentences; thus judgments are void	State: Sentences are lawful; phrase does not make judgment void; issue already litigated and rejected	The court held the judgments are not void and habeas relief is denied
Whether the habeas court erred in dismissing as previously decided	Hearing: prior decisions were inconsistent, so issue not finally resolved	State: prior appellate decisions consistently treated the sentences as life with eligibility and not void	The court held prior rulings were consistent and controlling; dismissal proper
Whether the phrase "life with parole" renders a sentence void on its face	Hearing: phrase materially altered plea terms and created illegality	State: terminology inaccurate but not facially void; statutory framework controls eligibility and release	The court held imperfect terminology does not make a judgment void; sentence lawful
Whether habeas corpus is available when judgment is voidable but not void	Hearing: sought habeas relief based on alleged illegality	State: habeas available only for void judgments, not merely voidable errors	The court reiterated habeas is limited to facially void judgments and denied relief

Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (standard of review and habeas law principles)
Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2000) (petitioner bears burden to show sentence is void or confinement illegal)
Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999) (habeas relief limited to void judgments on face of record)
Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910 (Tenn. 2000) (distinguishing void from voidable sentences; direct statutory contravention renders a sentence void)