State v. Thomas Stiger

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: March 26, 1998
• Docket: 02C01-9702-CR-00053
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY 1998 SESSION FILED March 26, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk THOMAS HAROLD STIGER, ) ) No. 02-C-01-9702-CR-00053 APPELLANT, ) ) Shelby County v. ) ) James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge COMMISSIONER, TENNESSEE ) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ) (Habeas Corpus) ) APPELLEE. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Thomas Harold Stiger, pro se John Knox Walkup P. O. Box 34550 Attorney General & Reporter Memphis, TN 38138 425 Fifth Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Deborah A. Tullis Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

William L. Gibbons District Attorney General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3-01 Memphis, TN 38103

Karen Cook Assistant District Attorney General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3-01 Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED: _______________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge OPINION

The appellant, Thomas Harold Stiger (petitioner), appeals as of right from the

summary dismissal of his habeas corpus action. The trial court dismissed the action

because (a) the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §§

29-12-101, et seq. and (b) the petitioner is a federal prisoner and was confined to a federal

penal institution when the petition was filed. In this court, the petitioner contends Tenn.

Code Ann. §§ 29-21-101 and -102 are unconstitutionally “vague or indefinite,” and the trial

court erred by applying Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21-101 and -102 to dismiss his habeas

corpus action. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties,

and the law governing the issues presented for review, it is the opinion of this court that the

judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of

Criminal Appeals.

The judgments of conviction are not void on their face and the sentences expire on

March 27, 2003, according to the exhibits attached to the petition. See Passarella v. State,

891 S.W.2d 619, 626 (Tenn. Crim. App.), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1994). In addition, the

petitioner is presently serving a federal sentence, and he is confined to a Federal Bureau

of Prisons facility. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-102.

________________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

CONCUR:

____________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE