Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON
November 15, 2006 Session JOSEPH FAULKNER, A/K/A JERRY FAULKNER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Appeal by permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals Criminal Court for Shelby County No. P-28323 James C. Beasley, Judge

No. W2004-02354-SC-R11-HC - Filed on April 27, 2007

In this case, we granted permission to appeal to determine whether a prisoner serving concurrent state and federal sentences in a federal correctional institution may attack his state convictions pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this state. We hold that the petitioner, who is incarcerated in a federal correctional institution serving concurrent state and federal sentences, is not barred from challenging his state convictions by a state writ of habeas corpus. Because the petitioner has failed to attach the requisite documentation in support of his claim that his sentences are illegal, however, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition but do so on different grounds than either the trial court or the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tenn. R. App. P. 11; Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed GARY R. WADE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, C.J., and JANICE M. HOLDER and CORNELIA A. CLARK, JJ., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY , SP . J., joined. Ronald D. Krelstein, Germantown, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joseph Faulkner, a/k/a Jerry Faulkner. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, and Rachel E. Willis, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Factual and Procedural Background In June of 1998, the petitioner, Joseph Faulkner, entered into a plea agreement with the State. He pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated rape in exchange for an effective sentence of twenty-five years. The trial court ordered that the entire sentence be served in federal custody, concurrently with the petitioner's sentence on federal convictions. See Faulkner v. State, No. W1999-00223-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS

822, at * 2-3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 17, 2000). When the federal government refused to allow the petitioner to serve the state sentences in federal custody, the petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief asserting that his guilty pleas were neither knowingly nor voluntarily entered. The trial court denied relief but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, ruling that the guilty pleas were involuntary because they were entered with the belief that the federal government would honor the terms of the sentence. Id. at * 10-11. The case was remanded, and in January of 2004, the petitioner again entered guilty pleas to three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated rape. Pursuant to a new plea agreement, the petitioner received concurrent sentences of ten years for each aggravated robbery conviction and twenty years for the aggravated rape conviction. Once again, the trial court ordered that the sentences be served concurrently with the petitioner's federal sentences and that the sentences be served in federal custody. Afterward, the petitioner was incarcerated in a federal correctional facility in Memphis. In April of 2004, the petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his twenty-year sentence is illegal. The petitioner contends that because he was on parole when he committed the offenses, the governing statute requires consecutive rather than concurrent sentences and, therefore, the sentence imposed is contrary to law. Because the record does not include any documentation of the petitioner's parole status, however, his claim is not entirely clear. The trial court dismissed the petition without the appointment of counsel and without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that because the petitioner was incarcerated in a federal institution, it lacked jurisdiction to address the claim. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court, holding that "the petitioner does not enjoy the benefit of the writ of state habeas corpus because a state court cannot command compliancy by the petitioner's federal jailer." We granted permission to appeal to determine whether a prisoner incarcerated in a federal correctional institution serving concurrent state and federal sentences may properly petition for habeas corpus relief in the courts of this state. Analysis The determination of whether habeas corpus relief should be granted is a question of law. Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000). Therefore, our standard of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded to the trial or intermediate appellate court. Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 205 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tenn. 2006). Revered by British historian Thomas Babington Macaulay as "the most stringent curb . . . ever . . . imposed on tyranny," the writ of habeas corpus had its origins in the common law courts of medieval England. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Tenn. 1993). Its essential purpose is to subject a restraint on liberty to judicial scrutiny. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 58 (1968). The United States Constitution guarantees that "[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." U.S.

-2-

Const. art. 1,

Download FaulknerJOPN.pdf

Tennessee Law