State v. Mark Tyre ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
DECEMBER 1997 SESSION
FILED
December 30, 1997
MARK LEE TYRE, ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) Appellate C ourt Clerk
APPELLANT, )
) No. 02-C-01-9702-CC-00057
)
) Lake County
v. )
) J. Steven Stafford, Judge
)
) (Habeas Corpus)
BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN, )
)
APPELLEE. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Mark Lee Tyre, Pro Se John Knox Walkup
Lake County Reception Correctional Facility Attorney General & Reporter
Route 1, Box 330 500 Charlotte Avenue
Tiptonville, TN 38079 Nashville, TN 37243-0497
Elizabeth T. Ryan
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. Phillip Bivens
District Attorney General
P. O. Drawer E
Dyersburg, TN 38024
OPINION FILED:_______________________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Mark Lee Tyre (petitioner), appeals as of right from a judgment of he
trial court summarily dismissing his action for habeas corpus relief. The trial court held the
petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief because his sentences have not expired,
and the judgments entered in his case are not void upon the face of the judgments. The
petitioner contends he is entitled to maintain an action for habeas corpus to contest the
validity of the indictments based upon this court’s decision in State v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr.,
Wayne County No. 01-C-01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 20, 1996).
He argues the two counts of the indictment in question failed to set forth the requisite mens
rea.
It has long been established that the remedy of habeas corpus is limited in scope
as well as relief. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 161-62 (Tenn. 1993); Passarella v.
State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 626 (Tenn. Crim. App.), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1994). In criminal
cases, the remedy is available if (a) the judgment is void or (b) the sentence has expired.
Passarella, 891 S.W.2d at 626. If the petition fails to establish one of these grounds for
relief, the trial court may dismiss the action without an evidentiary hearing. Passarella, 891
S.W.2d at 827.
In this case, the grounds for relief are cognizable in a post-conviction action, not an
action for habeas corpus. Therefore, the trial court properly summarily dismissed the
action for post-conviction for relief. Given these circumstances, this court is of the opinion
the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court
of Criminal Appeals.
________________________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
CONCUR:
______________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
______________________________________
CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE
2