Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1998

State v. Thomas Stiger

State v. Thomas Stiger
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · Decided March 26, 1998

State v. Thomas Stiger

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 Fifth Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 William L. Gibbons District Attorney General Poplar Avenue, Suite 3-01 Memphis, TN 38103 Karen Cook Assistant District Attorney General 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.