Charles G. Summers v. State of Tennessee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstated the trial court's summary dismissal of Charles Summers' pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his concurrent misdemeanor escape sentence. Holding that the face of the escape judgment showed no illegality because it was silent on whether Summers escaped while being held for the other charges, and that Summers attached no documents from the underlying record to support that assertion, the Court concluded that summary dismissal without counsel or a hearing was proper. The Court overruled McLaney v. Bell to the extent it could be read to require appointment of counsel and a hearing whenever a pro se habeas petition alleges an agreed sentence is illegal based on facts not apparent from the face of the judgment, clarifying that counsel in habeas is discretionary and necessary only within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 40-14-204. It simultaneously reaffirmed McLaney's remedial core that a plea agreement containing an illegal bargained-for sentence entitles the petitioner to withdraw the guilty plea.