James Robert Wilson v. State of Tennessee, M2016-00860-CCA-R3-HC

In 1997 James Robert Wilson was convicted by a Davidson County jury of especially aggravated robbery and first-degree (felony) murder for the killing of Timothy Holt; the trial court imposed an effective life sentence.
Trial evidence included eyewitness and participant testimony (Garcia, Walker, Toni Avant, pawnshop surveillance, witnesses to post-offense conduct and sales of the victim’s marijuana), and an autopsy showing three close-range shots to the back of the head.
The indictment charged Wilson under a 1995 statute using language that the murder was committed “recklessly” during the perpetration of a robbery.
At trial the court struck the word “recklessly” as surplusage and instructed the jury under the first-degree felony murder statute (without the word “recklessly”); Wilson was convicted and his direct appeal and post-conviction relief were denied.
In 2016 Wilson filed a habeas corpus petition claiming the trial court constructively amended the indictment (over his objection) by omitting the word “recklessly,” depriving the court of jurisdiction and rendering the judgment void; the habeas court summarily dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.

Issue	Wilson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Did the trial court’s omission of the word “recklessly” from the jury instruction and its striking at trial constitute a constructive amendment of the indictment that rendered the judgment void?	The omission changed an element charged by the grand jury and therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction; conviction is void and subject to habeas relief.	The “reckless” language was surplusage that did not change the essential elements of first-degree felony murder; the claim was previously rejected on direct appeal and is not a habeas-qualifying voidness.	The court held Wilson failed to show a void judgment; the “reckless” language was surplusage and the claim is not a cognizable basis for habeas relief.
Procedural: Was the habeas petition filed in the proper county?	(implicit) Petition filed in Davidson County where conviction occurred.	Petitioner was incarcerated in Hickman County; habeas petitions must be filed in the county most convenient to the petitioner absent sufficient reason.	The Court noted the procedural defect (wrong county) but nevertheless addressed the merits; dismissal was proper on the merits.

Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2007) (habeas corpus statutory framework)
Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124 (Tenn. 2006) (standard of review for habeas corpus is de novo)
Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 2000) (habeas corpus review principles)
Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999) (narrow grounds for habeas relief)
Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2000) (petitioner’s burden to show sentence is void)
Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910 (Tenn. 2000) (habeas relief limited to void judgments or expired sentences)
Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (procedural requirements for habeas corpus)
May v. Carlton, 245 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2008) (distinguishing void and voidable sentences)
State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000) (void vs. voidable judgment analysis)
Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (burden on petitioner to show voidness)
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (mandatory procedural requirements for habeas petitions)
Davis v. State, 261 S.W.3d 16 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (proper venue for habeas petitions and when filing in convicting court is justified)