Richard Earl Madkins, Jr. v. State of Tennessee and Grady Perry, Warden, W2015-02238-CCA-R3-HC

Background

Richard Earl Madkins Jr. was convicted in 1994 of especially aggravated robbery and originally received a consecutive sentence structure (an earlier 18-year sentence and a 60-year sentence that was later reversed by the Tennessee Supreme Court). A 25-year resentencing for the especially aggravated robbery occurred on November 4, 2003.
Multiple post-conviction and habeas challenges followed: several earlier convictions used to enhance the 1994 sentence were declared void, the State agreed to resentencing, and Madkins was resentenced to 25 years for the especially aggravated robbery.
Madkins has repeatedly sought habeas relief arguing (a) his earlier 18-year sentence expired in 2000 and (b) because of delays or calculation errors he should be released or not be required to serve the 25-year sentence; prior courts rejected these contentions.
In 2015 Madkins filed a fourth habeas petition claiming TDOC records and a classification board showed he was being held on the 60-year attempted felony murder sentence (which the Tennessee Supreme Court had reversed), and that TDOC miscalculated his release date.
The habeas court dismissed the petition without a hearing, finding the 25-year sentence had not expired; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding Madkins failed to show a void judgment or illegal confinement and that administrative calculation disputes must be raised under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act.

Issues

Issue	Madkins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Madkins is unlawfully confined on the vacated 60-year attempted felony murder sentence	TDOC records and a reclassification board show he is serving the 60-year sentence reversed by the Tennessee Supreme Court	Madkins has not shown he is serving the vacated sentence; his 25-year sentence remains valid	Court held Madkins did not prove he is serving the vacated 60-year sentence and dismissed the habeas petition
Whether the 25-year resentencing was void because of delay or prior sentence expiration	The 18-year sentence expired in 2000 and delay in resentencing rendered the 25-year sentence void	Prior appellate decisions and TDOC affidavit show the 25-year sentence is properly consecutive and not expired	Court held the 25-year sentence is not void and Madkins failed to meet his burden for habeas relief
Whether TDOC calculation/records establish a facially void judgment	TDOC forms/eTomis printout reflect conflicting expiration dates supporting his claim	Administrative calculation disputes do not render the judgment void; they are for administrative challenge procedures	Court held record-level calculation disputes must be raised under administrative procedures, not habeas; judgment is not void
Whether habeas corpus was the proper remedy to resolve the claimed calculation errors	Habeas is appropriate, per Madkins, to correct confinement based on expired or vacated sentences	Habeas applies only to facially void judgments or expired sentences; the burden is on petitioner to prove illegality	Court held habeas unavailable because the judgment is not facially void and confinement is not shown illegal

Key Cases Cited

Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (standard of review for habeas corpus is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2000) (burden on petitioner to show sentence is void or confinement illegal)
Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999) (habeas relief available only when judgment facially shows lack of jurisdiction or expired sentence)
Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910 (Tenn. 2000) (definition of a void judgment where court lacked jurisdiction or authority)
State v. Madkins, 989 S.W.2d 697 (Tenn. 1999) (supreme court decision addressing Madkins’ convictions and reversal of attempted felony murder)
Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012) (TDOC calculation disputes must be pursued under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act)