George Washington Matthews v. State of Tennessee, M2016-01011-CCA-R3-HC

George Washington Matthews was convicted on three counts: possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of attempting to introduce contraband (marijuana and cell phones) into a correctional complex.
Counts Two and Three charged Matthews with attempting to take marijuana and cell phones into the Northwest Correctional Complex in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-201.
Matthews filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief claiming those two attempt counts were insufficient because they failed to allege an overt act toward commission of the offense.
The trial court summarily dismissed the habeas petition without a hearing.
The State moved to affirm under CCA Rule 20; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted the motion and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of attempt counts in indictment	Counts lack allegation of an overt act toward commission of the attempt offenses	Indictment adequately identified the overt acts by alleging attempt to take specific contraband into the prison	Indictment was sufficient; habeas relief not warranted
Jury instruction challenge	Instruction was improper (details not raised below)	Issue was not preserved in habeas petition	Issue waived on appeal

McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90 (2001) (limits availability of habeas corpus relief)
Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (1993) (habeas corpus available when judgment is void or court lacked jurisdiction)
Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (1999) (habeas relief limited to void judgments, not voidable ones)
Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528 (1998) (indictment defects depriving jurisdiction may be attacked by habeas)
State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (1997) (constitutional requirements for an indictment: notice, basis for judgment, double jeopardy protection)
State v. Lewis, 36 S.W.3d 88 (2000) (attempt indictment must allege an overt act toward commission)
State v. Hammonds, 30 S.W.3d 294 (2000) (indictment need not allege specific theory or means of proof beyond notice)
State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136 (1997) (issues raised for the first time on appeal are waived)