E. Louis Thomas v. Grady Perry, Warden
W2016-01514-CCA-R3-HC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- In 2007 Thomas was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder (merged with felony murder) and sentenced to life; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Thomas filed a post-conviction petition which was dismissed as untimely and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- On June 16, 2016 Thomas filed a pro se habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to include suppression hearing transcript on appeal) and that a coerced confession was improperly admitted; he also claimed the habeas court violated due process by summarily dismissing his petition.
- The habeas court summarily denied relief, finding the petition failed to state a cognizable habeas claim, Thomas’s sentence had not expired, and the trial court had jurisdiction to sentence him.
- Thomas appealed the habeas court’s summary dismissal; the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed de novo whether habeas relief was available.
Issues
| Issue | Thomas's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to include suppression hearing transcript on appeal, denying effective assistance | Such claim is not cognizable in habeas; should be raised in post-conviction proceedings | Denied — not a cognizable habeas claim; post-conviction is proper remedy |
| Admission of confession | Confession was coerced; admission violated right to fair trial | Challenge to trial constitutional error is for post-conviction, not habeas | Denied — not a cognizable habeas claim; raised in prior post-conviction appeal |
| Due process re: summary dismissal | Habeas court violated due process by denying an evidentiary hearing and summarily dismissing petition | No hearing required when petition fails to state a cognizable claim | Denied — summary dismissal permissible where petition fails to state cognizable claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Tucker v. Morrow, 335 S.W.3d 116 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining habeas relief scope)
- Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (void judgment exists when court lacked jurisdiction)
- Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005) (distinguishing void and voidable judgments)
- Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (voidable judgments require proof beyond the record)
- Ritchie v. State, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000) (post-conviction as remedy for certain constitutional claims)
- Yates v. Parker, 371 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012) (habeas court may dismiss without hearing when petition lacks cognizable claim)