Gai D. Kuot v. State of Tennessee, M2021-00197-CCA-R3-HC

Background

Kuot was convicted in 2012 by a Davidson County jury of premeditated first-degree murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to life; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
In November 2020 Kuot filed a pro se habeas corpus petition asserting his convictions were void due to a defective indictment, an unsigned capias, and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The petition attached copies of records (an undated/unsigned indictment copy and an unsigned capias) provided by the district attorney’s records custodian.
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition for failing to show the sentence had expired and Kuot appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals took judicial notice of the original technical record from the direct appeal, which contained a properly dated, signed, and filed indictment bearing a case number and a True Bill.
The court concluded: defects in the copies did not render the judgment void; objections to non-jurisdictional indictment defects were waived if not raised pretrial; an unsigned capias or unlawful arrest does not, by itself, provide habeas relief absent tainted evidence; the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alleged defects in the indictment (undated; no case number; no foreperson signature; no "True Bill"; unsigned by DA) render convictions void	Kuot: the indictment was defective in multiple formal respects and therefore void	State: the original filed indictment in the record was proper; copies Kuot received were defective only; formal defects would not show lack of jurisdiction; objections were waived by not raising them pretrial	Rejected — court took judicial notice of a valid original indictment; documentary copy defects did not void the judgment and were waived if not timely objected to
Whether an unsigned capias voids conviction	Kuot: the capias mailed to him was unsigned and thus invalidated his arrest/conviction	State: capias is an intermediate process; even if arrest were illegal, unlawful arrest alone does not entitle relief absent evidence tainted by the arrest	Rejected — unsigned capias/illegal arrest alone does not support habeas relief
Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction	Kuot: trial court had no jurisdiction over his case	State: Davidson County Criminal Court has original jurisdiction over crimes committed in Davidson County; indictment charged offenses in Davidson County	Rejected — court had subject-matter jurisdiction based on the offenses alleged in Davidson County
Whether habeas corpus is the proper remedy	Kuot: sought habeas relief to void convictions	State: habeas relief is limited to void judgments or expired sentences; petitioner failed to show sentence expired or that judgment was void	Rejected — petitioner failed to meet the habeas standard; summary dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Edwards v. State, 269 S.W.3d 915 (Tenn. 2008) (habeas corpus review is limited and reviewed de novo)
Potts v. State, 833 S.W.2d 60 (Tenn. 1992) (habeas petitions challenge void, not merely voidable, judgments)
Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (habeas available only when record shows lack of jurisdiction or expired sentence)
Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2000) (burden on petitioner to prove judgment void by preponderance)
Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16 (Tenn. 2004) (summary dismissal appropriate when petition fails to demonstrate judgment is void)
Helton v. State, 530 S.W.2d 781 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975) (court may take judicial notice of records from direct appeal)
Moore v. State, 578 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1979) (capias is intermediate process to secure defendant's presence)
Dulsworth v. State, 781 S.W.2d 277 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989) (unlawful arrest does not by itself require suppression absent evidence taint)
Nixon v. State, 977 S.W.2d 119 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (definition of lack of jurisdiction as subject-matter jurisdiction)
Yoreck v. State, 133 S.W.3d 606 (Tenn. 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be conferred only by law or constitution)