Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Holland

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 2002PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

JANICE M. HOLDER, J„

delivered the opinion of the court,

in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., and E. RILEY ANDERSON, ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., and WILLIAM M. BARKER, JJ., joined.

We granted review in these consolidated cases to determine (1) whether William Andrew Dixon’s sentence under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2603 (1975) is void and thus subject to habeas corpus relief; and (2) whether Tenn.Code Ann. § 41-21-236(c) (1997) applies to Dixon’s sentence. We hold that Dixon’s sentence is void and grant habeas corpus relief. We further hold that Dixon is entitled to any sentence reduction credits…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. RitchieTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Stephenson v. CarltonTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  3. McLaney v. BellTennessee Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Mooney v. SneedTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State v. WallsTennessee Supreme Court · 2001

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Summers v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Hickman v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
  4. David Keen v. State of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Alder v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2002

60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API