CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, J.
In this appeal, pro se Petitioner Mario D. Thomas challenges the Hardeman County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.
In 2003, the Petitioner, along with two codefendants, was convicted by an Obion County Circuit Court jury of felony murder, second degree murder, and conspiracy to commit second degree murder. The convictions for first degree felony murder and second degree murder were merged, and the Petitioner was sentenced to life without parole for first degree felony murder and eight years for the conspiracy to commit second degree murder. The Petitioner appealed arguing,
In 2004, the Petitioner filed a timely pro se motion for post-conviction relief, alleging a violation of the Interstate Compact on Detainers Act, the denial of his right to testify at trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief, and this Court affirmed the judgment on appeal.
Over ten years later, on April 8, 2015, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. On April 15, 2015, the habeas corpus court entered an order summarily dismissing the petition, reasoning that the Petitioner failed to raise any cognizable claims for relief. It is from this order that the Petitioner now appeals.
The Petitioner alleges that the habeas corpus court erred in dismissing his petition without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. As we understand the petitioner's claims, his specific grounds for relief are: (1) the trial court improperly amended his verdicts, (2) the jury improperly convicted him of first degree felony murder without convicting him of the underlying felony, and (3) his conviction for conspiracy to commit second degree murder is void because the named victim was not killed.
"The determination of whether habeas corpus relief should be granted is a question of law."
A prisoner is guaranteed the right to habeas corpus relief under Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution. Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15;
If the habeas corpus court determines from the petitioner's filings that no cognizable claim has been stated and that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the petition for writ of habeas corpus may be summarily dismissed.
The Petitioner argues that his first degree murder judgment is void because "the Trial Court . . . lacked jurisdiction . . . to change the jury verdict after its [sic] was discharged, from a felony murder conviction, [sic] to a first degree murder conviction at the State [sic] request on May 31, 2001, after the jury's [sic] had found [the Petitioner] not guilty of first degree murder on March 16, 2001[.]" The Petitioner insists that "it was a fatal error for the trial court to change the jury verdict at the State[`s] request once the jury was discharged." The State responds that the trial court initially entered an erroneous judgment reflecting a conviction for premeditated murder, which was a clerical error. The trial court later entered a second judgment to reflect felony murder, which is consistent with the transcript of the jury verdict. Upon our review, we agree with the State.
The Petitioner's brief notes that at the May 31, 2001 sentencing hearing, the State requested the trial court to "change the jury verdict from a conviction for felony murder to a conviction for first degree murder whereby the State corrected the March 16, 2001 felony murder to reflect a correct conviction for first degree murder[.]" In reality, the record shows that on May 31, 2001, the trial court entered a "corrected judgment" listing the conviction offense for Count 2 as "First Degree Murder-Premeditated" and noting in the special comments that the judgment was corrected to reflect the correct social security number. Significantly, the record does not include the original judgment. At some point not borne out by the record, the trial court entered another "corrected judgment" for Count 2 listing the conviction offense as "First Degree Murder-Felony," and noting in the special comments that the corrected judgment was entered to reflect the correct conviction offense.
Next, the Petitioner argues that the jury "violated its oath and the law" by improperly convicting him of first degree felony murder "in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202(2) (felony murder statute)," by not applying the law to the facts of the case, and by disregarding the law as provided them by the trial court. We are compelled to note that our review of this issue is hindered by the limited record on appeal. We do not have the indictments or a complete set of jury instructions to determine the context of the Petitioner's claim. The direct appeal notes that the petitioner was charged with conspiracy to commit first degree murder, first degree felony murder, and first degree premeditated murder. We do not know the named victims or the corresponding counts within the indictment. The petitioner attached the following four judgments to his petition: (1) for count 2, a "corrected judgment" listing a conviction for first degree premeditated murder with a note in the special conditions that it was corrected to reflect the correct social security number; (2) for count 2, another "corrected judgment" listing a conviction for first degree felony murder with a note in the special conditions that it was reflecting the correct conviction offense; (3) for count 3, a judgment listing the charged offense as first degree murder and the conviction offense as second degree murder and noting that it was merged into count 2; and (4) for count 1, a judgment listing the charged offense as criminal conspiracy to commit first degree murder and the same for the conviction offense. He also attached pages from the transcript of the jury instructions for criminally negligent homicide, first degree felony murder noting "that the killing was committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate the alleged first degree murder," and the elements of first degree murder.
As noted above, the jury convicted the petitioner of criminal conspiracy to commit second degree murder for count 1, felony first degree murder for count 2, and second degree murder for count 3. The trial court merged count 3 into count 2. To the extent that we understand the petitioner's argument, he believes that his first degree felony murder judgment is void because the jury did not follow the instructions given to them by the judge. He further argues that his conviction for conspiracy to commit second degree murder is void because the named victim was not killed. Here, the Petitioner did not provide this court with the indictment or transcripts in support his claim. Regardless, even if true, the Petitioner's claims essentially challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, which is not a cognizable claim in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, we affirm the habeas court's summary dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.