Lamario Hill v. Kevin Genovese, Warden
W2021-01150-CCA-R3-HC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Apr 11, 2022Background
- Hill was convicted in 2007 of first-degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault for a 2005 convenience-store shooting; sentenced to life plus concurrent 9- and 4-year terms.
- Direct appeal and a post-conviction ineffective-assistance claim were previously litigated and affirmed/denied on the merits.
- On September 7, 2021 Hill filed a pro se habeas corpus petition claiming his life sentence is void under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(i) and other statutes and that the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment under Miller/Montgomery as a de facto LWOP for a juvenile.
- The habeas court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding the sentence, at most, is voidable (not void) and Hill stated no cognizable habeas claim.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding subsection (i)(1) governs release eligibility for first-degree murder committed on/after July 1, 1995, Miller/Montgomery do not apply to non-mandatory LWOP, and habeas was not the proper vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill's life sentence is void because imposed under Tenn. Code § 40-35-501(i) and conflicts with § 40-35-501(a)(2) and § 40-28-115(b)(1) | Hill: § 40-35-501(i) is invalid or conflicts with earlier parole provisions; he should have parole eligibility | State/Court: § 40-35-501(i)(1) specifically governs first-degree murders on/after 7/1/1995 and authorizes Hill's life sentence | Court: Judgment not void; subsection (i)(1) controls and authorizes the sentence |
| Whether Hill's life sentence for a juvenile violates the Eighth Amendment under Miller and Montgomery as a de facto LWOP | Hill: A 51-year de facto LWOP for juvenile offenders triggers Miller/Montgomery; relief should be retroactive | State/Court: Miller applies only to mandatory LWOP; Hill received life (with release-eligibility mechanics) and constitutional claims belong in post-conviction | Court: Miller/Montgomery inapplicable; habeas not the proper remedy; claim fails |
| Whether habeas corpus was the proper procedural vehicle | Hill: Habeas available to attack illegality/voidness of sentence | State/Court: Habeas is limited to facially void judgments; Hill's claim is voidable and requires proof outside the record; prior post-conviction limits | Court: Habeas dismissal proper; Hill failed to allege a cognizable voidness claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively)
- Brown v. Jordan, 563 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2018) (interpreting § 40-35-501 and explaining subsection (i) increases required service and governs post-1995 first-degree murder)
- Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (habeas relief limited to void judgments; distinction between void and voidable)
- Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999) (habeas corpus available only where record shows court lacked jurisdiction or sentence expired)
- State v. Frazier, 558 S.W.3d 145 (Tenn. 2018) (a specific statutory provision controls over a more general one)