Jimmy Newell v. Tamara Ford, Warden
W2016-00941-CCA-R3-HC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 12, 2016Background
- On May 20, 2014, Jimmy Newell pleaded guilty to multiple offenses including two counts of theft of property between $1,000 and $10,000; the trial court imposed an effective four-year sentence with parole eligibility after service of 30%.
- The State sent a letter to the parole board urging continued incarceration; the parole board denied parole.
- On April 7, 2016, Newell filed a habeas corpus petition arguing (1) the State’s letter violated the plea agreement and rendered his theft convictions void (involuntary/unknowing plea), and (2) he had served 30% of his sentence so his sentences had expired.
- The trial court dismissed the habeas petition without a hearing; Newell appealed.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed de novo and examined whether the judgments were void (as opposed to voidable) or the sentences had expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State's letter to parole board rendered guilty pleas void (involuntary/unknowing plea) | Newell: Letter violated plea "spirit" and made plea unknowing/involuntary, so convictions are void | State: Plea was facially valid; record shows State recommended a 4-year sentence with 30% eligibility, not a promise of release | Court: Judgment is not void. Involuntary/unknowing plea renders judgment voidable, not void; plea was facially valid. |
| Whether Newell's sentences had expired after serving 30% so habeas relief is warranted | Newell: Having served >30% of effective sentence, his sentences expired | State: 30% was parole eligibility, not completion; sentence remains outstanding until actual discharge | Court: Sentence not expired; eligibility for parole ≠ completion; habeas relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. State, 269 S.W.3d 915 (Tenn. 2008) (standard: habeas corpus review is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (habeas corpus relief limited to judgments facially void for lack of jurisdiction or expired sentences)
- Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (distinguishing void and voidable judgments)
- Anglin v. Mitchell, 575 S.W.2d 284 (Tenn. 1978) (discussed regarding involuntary plea; later limited/overruled on this point)
- Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2000) (petitioner bears burden to show sentence is void by preponderance)
- Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999) (noting narrow grounds for habeas relief)