Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELL
Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville
Feb. 27, 2009
279 S.W.3d 560
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Rachel E. Willis, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson III, District Attorney General; and Roger Moore, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JANICE M. HOLDER, C.J., WILLIAM M. BARKER, and CORNELIA A. CLARK, JJ., joined. GARY R. WADE, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
This appeal involves the application of the transfer provisions in
I.
In 2005, Terrance N. Carter pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Maury County to possession of less than one-half (.5) grams of cocaine with the intent to sell. On August 29, 2005, in accordance with Mr. Carter‘s plea agreement, the court in Maury County sentenced Mr. Carter as a Range I offender to seven years to be served consecutively to a prior sentence. The judgment stated in the space for “Special Conditions” that Mr. Carter had agreed to both consecutive sentencing and to a sentence outside of the range.
Mr. Carter was incarcerated in a prison in Davidson County. On May 23, 2006, he filed a pro se “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus” in the Criminal Court for Davidson County. He asserted in his petition that the trial court in Maury County lacked jurisdiction to impose his consecutive seven-year sentence because it exceeded the maximum sentence available to a Range I offender convicted of the crime to which he had pleaded guilty.1 Mr. Carter
On June 8, 2006, the trial court denied Mr. Carter‘s habeas corpus petition without appointing counsel or holding a hearing. Noting that Mr. Carter had agreed to be sentenced outside of his range, the trial court concluded that Mr. Carter‘s judgment was neither illegal nor void.
Mr. Carter then appealed pro se to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Counsel was appointed to represent him. In his pro se brief filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals, Mr. Carter argued (1) that the trial court erred by denying the habeas corpus petition without appointing counsel and holding a hearing and (2) that the judgment was void because he received an out-of-range sentence. Mr. Carter also asserted that the Court of Criminal Appeals should treat the habeas corpus petition as a petition for post-conviction relief and should order the Criminal Court for Davidson County to transfer the case to Maury County.2
The Court of Criminal Appeals filed its opinion on September 21, 2007. The court, in a holding entirely consistent with Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Tenn.2007), held that the sentence that Mr. Carter agreed to serve was legal because it was within the maximum sentence allowable for the offense.3 Carter v. Bell, No. M2006-01363-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 2744998, at *1 (Tenn.Crim.App. Sept.21, 2007). After noting that other panels of the Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed on the transfer question,4 the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Mr. Carter‘s argument that
II.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus “should be made to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the applicant, unless a sufficient reason be given in the petition for not applying to such court or judge.”
Mr. Carter properly filed his habeas corpus petition in the county in which he was incarcerated. His claim—that he agreed to an illegal sentence and should therefore be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea—was properly presented in a habeas corpus petition. See Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124, 129 (Tenn.2006) (recognizing that where sentence bargained for is otherwise illegal, guilty plea may be withdrawn upon habeas corpus proceedings). The court in Davidson County properly declined to grant Mr. Carter habeas corpus relief on the merits of his claim. See Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d at 780 (holding that an agreed sentence outside of offender range but within statutory maximum is legal).
Mr. Carter asserted for the first time before the Court of Criminal Appeals that the habeas corpus petition should be treated as one for post-conviction relief based on the claim that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The Post-Conviction Procedure Act provides that a “petition for habeas corpus may be treated as a petition under this part when the relief and procedure authorized by this part appear adequate and appropriate, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in title 29, chapter 21, or any other statute.”
Even in the absence of such a statutory provision, a court has the discretion to treat a pleading according to the relief sought. Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Tenn.1995). In Norton, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Morgan County, alleging that the Board of Paroles had illegally revoked his parole. The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that it failed to state a claim for habeas corpus relief and that a claim for review of the actions of the Board of Paroles must be filed in Davidson County. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court should have converted the habeas petition into a petition for common-law writ of certiorari and transferred it to a proper court in Davidson County. Although this Court agreed with the Court of Criminal Appeals that a trial court has the discretion to treat a pleading according to the relief sought, we determined that a trial court lacking subject matter jurisdiction over a case may not transfer it in the absence of statutory authority. Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d at 319-20. Thus, even if Mr. Carter‘s habeas corpus petition could be treated as one for post-conviction relief, the habeas court, lacking subject matter jurisdiction over a post-conviction case, may not transfer the action in the absence of statutory authority.
While bound by this general rule, the Court in Norton observed in dicta that “both judicial economy and our state‘s policy of disposing of cases on the merits, rather than for technical reasons, would be better served by the adoption of a rule allowing courts without subject matter jurisdiction to transfer the case to any proper court.” Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d at 320. The Court, therefore, invited the General Assembly to enact a broad transfer statute. Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d at 320.
Apparently in response to this Court‘s invitation, the General Assembly enacted
Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule of court to the contrary, when an original civil action, an appeal from the judgment of a court of general sessions, or a petition for review of a final decision in a contested case under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5, is filed in a state or county court of record or a general sessions court and such court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was originally filed. Upon such a transfer, the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been originally filed in the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in the court from which it was transferred.
The issue presented for review requires statutory construction. We review issues of statutory construction de novo with no presumption of correctness attaching to the rulings of the court below. State v. Edmondson, 231 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tenn.2007). The most basic principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope. State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395, 401 (Tenn.2008). When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must apply its plain meaning in its normal and accepted use, without a forced interpretation that would extend the meaning of the language and, in that instance, we enforce the language without reference to the broader statutory intent, legislative history, or other sources. Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Div., 256 S.W.3d 626, 630 (Tenn.2008). Statutes relating to the same subject or having a common purpose should be construed together. Lawrence County Educ. Ass‘n v. Lawrence County Bd. of Educ., 244 S.W.3d 302, 309 (Tenn.2007). We must presume that the General Assembly is aware of prior enactments and of decisions of the courts when enacting legislation. Ki v. State, 78 S.W.3d 876, 879 (Tenn.2002).
Although the petitioner in Norton v. Everhart filed a habeas corpus petition, this Court agreed with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the petition should be treated as a civil action. The issue in Norton, therefore, concerned transferring a civil action. As such, the General Assembly‘s presumed awareness of Norton provides no support for Mr. Carter‘s argument that
This Court has held that a post-conviction proceeding is criminal in nature for the purpose of
Post-conviction proceedings are best described as proceedings arising out of a criminal case. See
Having determined that
III.
We have concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly determined that the trial court did not err by denying Mr. Carter‘s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have also concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly determined that
GARY R. WADE, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
GARY R. WADE, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, our legislature has granted trial courts with broad statutory authority to transfer claims filed in the wrong jurisdiction under the remedial provisions found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-1-116 (Supp.2008). Moreover, this Court has traditionally encouraged the disposition of colorable claims on the merits rather than on procedural grounds. In consequence, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand to the trial court for a transfer of the claim to the court having jurisdiction under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.
Background
The relevant facts are as stated by the majority. On August 29, 2005, the Petitioner was convicted of possession of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. The trial court imposed a seven year sentence. Nine months later, the Petitioner, while incarcerated in Davidson County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Davidson County Criminal Court. The Petitioner contended that he had been illegally sentenced to seven years, when, as a Range I offender for a class C felony, he only qualified for a term of between three and six years. See State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978). He further alleged that his guilty plea was “not knowingly and voluntarily entered,” a claim of constitutional violation subject to review under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1967.1
On June 8, 2006, the trial court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had failed to establish that his conviction or sentence was “void or illegal,” grounds for habeas corpus relief. See Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn.2005). The trial court did not, however, address the Petitioner‘s request to remand the case to the Criminal Court of Maury County. Afterward, the Petitioner filed a timely appeal, but he did not file a separate post-conviction petition in Maury County Criminal Court within the one year statute of limitations.
Analysis
Habeas Corpus and Post-Conviction
The statutory provisions governing habeas corpus relief and post-conviction relief in Tennessee are two “separate and distinct” procedures. Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 261 (Tenn.2007). “Any person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever ... may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint.”
In contrast, a petitioner may seek relief under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act “when the conviction or sentence is void or voidable because of the abridgment of any right guaranteed by the Constitution of Tennessee or the Constitution of the United States.”
A pro se petition in a post-conviction case is “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, and the test is whether it appears beyond doubt that the [petitioner] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Swanson v. State, 749 S.W.2d 731, 734 (Tenn.1988) (quoting Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 939 (Tenn. 1975)). Although a pro se litigant generally must adhere to the same procedural rules as one represented by counsel, this Court has previously ruled that a “pro se petition cannot be held to the standards of a petition drafted by a lawyer.” Id. at 735.4 Moreover, the trial court has the discretionary authority to treat a petition for habeas corpus relief as one for post-conviction relief.
Transfer of Cases
These principles are the backdrop for the question of first impression posed in this case: whether a trial court should transfer grounds for post-conviction relief
In Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317 (Tenn.1995), the petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Morgan County Criminal Court seeking review of a parole revocation decision. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner did not allege any possible grounds for habeas corpus relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals, which applied the relaxed standard applicable to pro se proceedings, reversed, concluding that the trial court had the inherent power to transfer the habeas corpus petition to Davidson County for review as a petition for certiorari. Id. at 318. After granting an application by the State for permission to appeal, this Court reinstated the judgment of dismissal, holding “that a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction over a case has no authority to transfer it, unless that authority is specifically conferred by statute, rule, or constitutional provision.” Id. at 319. Importantly, however, Justice Frank Drowota, writing for a unanimous court, also observed that “both judicial economy and our ... policy of disposing of cases on the merits, rather than for technical reasons, would be better served by the adoption of a rule allowing courts without subject matter jurisdiction to transfer the case to any proper court.” Id. at 320 (emphasis added). Based upon a desire to facilitate the consideration of claims on their substance rather than their form, or lack thereof, this Court “invite[d] the legislature to enact a broad transfer statute.” Id.
Shortly after the decision in Norton, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a broad, remedial transfer provision. The statute, effective on May 23, 2000, provides as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule of court to the contrary, when an original civil action, an appeal from the judgment of a court of general sessions, or a petition for review of a final decision in a contested case under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5, is filed in a state or county court of record or a general sessions court and such court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was originally filed. Upon such a transfer, the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been originally filed in the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in the court from which it was transferred.
The question in this instance is whether this statute governs in these circumstances. I believe that it does, whether by the plain meaning of the words or by the historical context of the legislation. If that
Plain Meaning of Section 16-1-116
Well-defined precepts apply to questions of statutory interpretation. Our chief concern is to carry out legislative intent without broadening or restricting the statute beyond its intended scope. Houghton v. Aramark Educ. Res., Inc., 90 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tenn.2002). When a statute is clear, we apply the plain meaning without complicating the task. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tenn.2004). Our obligation is simply to enforce the written language. Abels ex rel. Hunt v. Genie Indus., Inc., 202 S.W.3d 99, 102 (Tenn.2006). It is only when a statute is ambiguous that courts may reference the broader statutory scheme, the history of the legislation, or other sources. Parks v. Tenn. Mun. League Risk Mgmt. Pool, 974 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tenn.1998).
When attempting to ascertain the plain meaning of a statutory text, courts will often rely on dictionaries for widely-accepted definitions of individual words and terms.6 See, e.g., State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710, 719-20 (Tenn.2008) (interpreting
At the time the General Assembly enacted section 16-1-116 in 2000, the latest edition of Black‘s Law Dictionary provided the following definition of “civil action“: “[a]n action brought to enforce, redress, or protect a private or civil right; a noncriminal litigation.” Black‘s Law Dictionary 30 (7th ed.1999). A “private right” was defined as “[a] personal right, as opposed to a right of the public or the state.” Id. at 1323. A “civil right,” on the other hand, was defined as follows:
- The individual rights of personal liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and by the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, as well as by legislation such as the Voting Rights Act. Civil rights include esp. the right to vote, the right of due process, and the right of equal protection under the law.
- CIVIL LIBERTY
By the use of this definition, a petition containing a claim of constitutional abridgement qualifies as “[a]n action brought to enforce, redress, or protect a private or civil right.” In this instance, the Petitioner, who sought to protect his “individual rights of personal liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights” and his “[f]reedom from undue governmental interference or restraint,” claimed his action was to protect a civil right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Although the dictionary definition of “civil action” included only “non-criminal litigation,” and a claim under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act is an attack upon a criminal conviction or sentence, Black‘s Law Dictionary limited the definition of “criminal proceeding” to a determination of “a person‘s guilt or innocence [or] a convicted person‘s punishment,” or “a criminal hearing or trial.” Id. at 1221. Here, the Petitioner did not seek to establish his guilt or innocence or to set his punishment; instead, he presented a collateral challenge to the constitutionality of his earlier conviction, a proceeding this Court has previously described as not strictly criminal in nature. See Watkins v. State, 903 S.W.2d 302, 305 (Tenn.1995) (“A post-conviction proceeding is a hybrid affair ... which is considered under civil rules of procedure.“).
If a post-conviction action fits the plain meaning of “civil action,” it must only fall outside the meaning of “original civil action” if it is not “original.” The term “original” in its most natural meaning refers to any jurisdiction which is not appellate. See Black‘s Law Dictionary at 856 (defining “original jurisdiction“). A post-conviction claim is a new, collateral challenge to an earlier judgment, not an appeal. Edwards v. State, 269 S.W.3d 915, 919-20 (Tenn.2008) (“Indeed, recognizing the limited nature of Tennessee‘s habeas corpus procedure, the Legislature enacted the Post-Conviction Procedure Act to provide a collateral procedure that allows state courts to consider and to remedy a broader range of claims.“).
In consequence, I cannot concur with the majority‘s conclusion that “original civil action” unambiguously excludes actions for post-conviction relief. It is my opinion that the term includes actions for post-conviction and habeas corpus relief—both of which are actions by private individuals to enforce their personal civil rights. If, however, the phrase qualifies as ambiguous, or if there is reason to think that the General Assembly intended to employ a definition other than its plain meaning, it is our duty to ascertain intent by consideration of the legislative history of a statute.
Context of Section 16-1-116
Section 16-1-116 was enacted against a background of prior judicial decisions considering the appropriate application of procedural rules to litigation involving both civil and criminal elements. Neither the rules of criminal procedure nor the rules of civil procedure apply to post-conviction proceedings, except as specifically provided by statute or Supreme Court Rule. See
Watkins, 903 S.W.2d at 305 (quoting ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 22-1.2) (2nd Ed.) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added).The procedural characteristics of the post-conviction remedy should be appropriate to the purposes of the remedy. While the post-conviction proceeding is separate from the original prosecution proceeding, the post-conviction stage is an extension of the original proceeding and should be related to it insofar as feasible.
Post-conviction review has become an established part of the criminal process. In formulating a rule we recognize that the post-conviction proceeding is procedurally separate and apart from the original criminal prosecution. It may be initiated by a petition for habeas corpus. It seeks not to convict, but to set aside a conviction which is void or voidable because of the abridgement of constitutional rights.... The procedure by which a criminal conviction may be set aside is civil in nature, therefore it is tried under the Rules of Civil Procedure and less stringent evidentiary rules apply. If the petitioner is unsuccessful in his application his criminal status is retained.
By the application of these principles, we previously determined that
Statutory context, like our earlier precedents, supports the applicability of 16-1-116 to post-conviction and habeas corpus actions. Significantly, section 16-1-116 does not exclude either habeas corpus or post-conviction cases. Moreover, that the statute was enacted after our decision in Norton, without specific exclusion, implies that transfers of petitions for lack of jurisdiction met with legislative approval. See State v. Powers, 101 S.W.3d 383, 394 (Tenn.2003) (stating that the legislature is presumed to know existing law when legislation is enacted). Similarly, there is no specific provision in the habeas corpus statutory scheme that either allows or prohibits the transfer of a habeas corpus case to the court of conviction for further proceedings under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. In the absence of specific statutory guidance, the general provisions of section 16-1-116 should control.
In my view, section 16-1-116 clearly vests the trial courts with the authority to transfer a post-conviction claim from one
Our admonition in Watkins is applicable here: “The availability of a procedure to regain liberty lost through criminal process cannot be made contingent upon a choice of labels.” 903 S.W.2d at 305 (quoting Smith, 365 U.S. at 712). Because I believe that the trial court had the statutory authority to transfer the case to the court of conviction for proceedings under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, I would reverse and remand for transfer to the Criminal Court of Maury County.
Notes
- To provide a post-conviction process at least as broad in scope as existing federal statutes under which claims of violation of constitutional right asserted by persons convicted by the state courts of Tennessee are determined in federal courts under the federal habeas corpus statutes.
- To provide a procedure in such cases that is swift and simple and easily invoked.
- To provide for full fact hearings to resolve disputed factual issues, and for compilation of a record to enable federal courts to determine the sufficiency of those hearings.
- To provide for decisions supported by opinions, fact findings and conclusions of law, which disclose the grounds of decision and resolution of disputed facts.
Anderson, 2006 WL 739885, at *3.Notwithstanding this holding, we are constrained to note that “[a] petition for habeas corpus may be treated as a petition under [the Post-Conviction Procedure Act] when the relief and procedure authorized by [the Act] appear adequate and appropriate....”
T.C.A. § 40-30-105(c) . In considering whether a post-conviction petition states a colorable claim for relief, the post-conviction court is to take the facts alleged as true. SeeT.C.A. § 40-30-106(f) (2003) .