Orlando Malone v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01464-CCA-R3-HC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- Malone was convicted in Bradley County for first degree felony murder and multiple robbery counts after a confrontation over change for a $50 bill.
- He filed multiple habeas petitions in different counties; this is his third petition challenging those convictions.
- The habeas court summarily dismissed for failure to comply with statutory filing requirements and for alleged non-cognizable grounds.
- On appeal, the State argued Malone failed to provide required copies of prior petitions and proceedings, and the other claims were not valid habeas grounds.
- The court reviews habeas decisions de novo and limits relief to void judgments or invalid confinement, not merely voidable ones.
- The court affirmed the dismissal, ruling the petition did not meet procedural prerequisites and the claimed defects did not support habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was summary dismissal proper for failure to comply with §29-21-107(b)(4)? | Malone | State | Yes; dismissal proper for missing documents and procedural omissions. |
| Are fatal-variance claims cognizable in habeas corpus? | Malone | State | No; fatal-variance claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. |
| Are double jeopardy challenges to multiple theft offenses cognizable in habeas corpus? | Malone | State | No; double jeopardy claim not cognizable in habeas corpus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2007) (habeas review is de novo; writ is for void judgments)
- Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 2000) (de novo standard of review for habeas petitions)
- Ussery v. Avery, 432 S.W.2d 656 (Tenn. 1968) (habeas scope and void vs voidable judgments)
- State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 424 S.W.2d 186 (Tenn. 1968) (purpose of state habeas petitions to attack void judgments)
- Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (jurisdictional integrity as measure of voidness)