### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 19
, 200 3

JOHNN Y L . M cGOWA N, JR. v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 00C-3729 Thom as W. Brothers, Judge

No. M2003- 00268-CCA -R3-C O - F iled April 7, 2004

The pe titioner directly appea ls the dismiss al of his pe tition of writ of habea s corpus. The judg ment of the ha be a s c ou rt

su mma ri ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ion fo r w ri t of ha be a s c or pu s is re ve rs e d, a nd thi s

case is remande d to the Circuit Court of Davidson Count y fo r appoint ment of counse l and an evidentiar y

hearing. If the ha

beas corpus court finds the s entenc e to be illeg al, the court must t hen

rema nd the ca se to the Rutherfor d CountyCriminal Court, where the convictions occ urre d. On

rema nd to the orig inal convicting court, the pe titioner’s g uilty plea may be withdrawn if c oncurr ent

se nte nc ing wa s a

c on dit ion of

his ple a a g re e me nt.

Te nn. R . A pp. 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t R e ve r se d and Rem anded

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., deliver ed t h e o p i n i on of the c ourt, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

J ohnny McGowa n, Nashville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; H elena Walton Yarbroug h, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Ma

rk A. Hudson, Senior Counsel, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

On J anuary

24, 1994, the petitioner, JohnnyL . McGowa n, J r., pled g uilty to the following offe nses: ag g rava ted ar son, arson, six counts of reckle ss endang erme nt with a deadly wea pon, and
two counts of vandalism. The petiti oner rece ived a sentenc e of twenty y ear s for a g g rava ted ar son, five y ear s for a

rson, and one y ear

on eac h of the e ight r emaining counts. All sentence s were order ed
to r un c on c ur re ntl y wi th the tw e nty -y e a r se nte nc e fo r a g g ra vate d a rs on

. Th e jud g me nt a lso re fl e c ts that th e tw e nty -y e ar s e nte nc e wa s ord e re d to run c on c ur re ntl y wi th a pr ior , a pp a re ntl y un re la te d c a se in Rutherford County , bearing c ase number 27110. The re cord is devoid of any details conc erning

case number 27110.-2-

On Dec ember

28, 2000, the petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus, alleg ing thr ee g rounds for r elief: a. The sentenc e wa s v o i d b eca use it was orde red to run c oncurr ent to the prior

un re la te d o ff

e ns e , in c on tr a ve nti on of

sta tut or y la w; b. C o u nsel was inef

fec tive for c oerc ing the petitioner to enter into an illega l plea; and

c . T he pe tit ion e r’ s c on tin ue d in c a rc e ratio n is un c on sti tut ion a l.

The trial c ourt, on October 11, 2001, enter ed an or der dismissing the pe titioner’s writ of ha be as corp us . The or de r c ha ra c te ri zedthe se nte nc e in this c a us e a s v oida nd ill e g a l, d ue to i ts contra vention of statutory law which mandated consec utive sentenc ing to the prior, un re l ated offe nse. Howe ver, t h e t ri al co u rt noted that the pe titioner had not cha lleng ed the va lidityof the
sentenc e in ca se number 27110 a nd presumed it valid. The trial court further noted that the Criminal Court of Rutherfor d Countyret ained authority to corre ct the illeg al sentenc e. The petitioner filed a notice of

appea l on J anuary

24, 2003.

The State c ontends that the petit ioner’s appea l should fail due to the unt imely filing of the notice of appea l. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e ) and 4( a). H oweve r, in the intere st of justice, we ha ve decide d to waive the timely filing of the notice of

appea l. See id. 4(a)

.

Th e g ro un ds up on wh ic h habe a s cor pu s re lie f i s w a rr a nte d a

re de c ide dly

na rr ow . T he wr it will issue onlywhen it appe ars upon the f ace of t he judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed that a court lac ked jurisdiction or authority to sentence a def

endant or that the sente nce has expired. Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) ; Arche r

v

. S t at e, 8 5 1 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 7
, 1 6 4 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ). A ha b ea s co rp u s p et i t i o n m ay b e us ed t o c h a l l e n ge judgme nts that are void, not mere ly voidable. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A void judgment “ is one in which the judg ment is facia lly invalid because the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r t he judgment, or beca use t he defenda nt’s sentenc e has e x pired.” I d. (citations omitted )

. B y c o n tr a s t, a v o id ab le c o n v ic ti o n o r s e n te n c e is o n e w h ic h is f a c ia ll y v a li d
, and thus require s proof bey ond the fac e of the rec ord or judgme nt to establish its invalidity

. I d. The burde n of proof that the judg ment or senten ce i s “v o id,” ra ther than “ voidable,” r ests with the petitioner. Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

.

A se nte nc e imp os e d in dir e c t c on tr a ve nti on of a sta tut e is v oida nd ill e g a l. S ta te v. B ur kh a rt , 566 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978). The petitioner alleg es, and the trial court appar ently ag ree d, that the fe lon y

of fe ns e s in c a se 27 45 7 w e re c omm itt e d w hil e the pe tit ioner was ou t on bo nd fo r c a se 27110. Thus, the conc urre n t s en t ence s would be in direc t contrave ntion to Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 40-20-111( b), which pr ovides the following : “ I n any case in which a de fenda nt commits a felony

while such de fenda nt was re lease d on bai l
, . . . t he trial judg e shall not have discretion as to whe ther the se ntence s shall run conc urrently or cumulatively , but shall order tha t such sentenc es be se rved c umulatively .”-3-

I n McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90 (Tenn. 2001), the habeas petitioner f iled a petition in the Davidson County

Criminal Court al l egi n g that he had be en re lease d on bail on a cha rg e out of J ef fe rson C ounty

when he committed two additional felonies in that county . The pe titioner

s u b m i t t ed a p l ea a g ree ment for a ll these cha rg es to the Jeffer son CountyCircuit Court. The plea
ag ree ment contained a

provision that all three of the petitioner’s se ntence s were to be serve d

concur rently . The pe titioner further allege d that, beca

use he w as on bail for

one fe lony

when he committed two others, his sentence s were illega l, because Tenne ssee Code Annotated sec tion 40-20- 111(b) a nd Tenne ssee Rule of C ri m i n al P roce dure 32( c)( 3)(C) manda ted conse cutive sente ncing under such circ umstances. I n light of the fact that his ag ree ment to serve concur rent sente nces w as illega l, the petitioner maintained his pleas of g uilty wer e not know ingly or voluntarily enter ed and should be set aside.

The Te nnessee Supreme Court held that if McL aney ’s alleg ations about being on bail when he committed two additional fe lonies were true, then c oncurr ent senten ces would be in direct
contra vention of the law, illega l, void, a nd subject to revie w by way of a w rit of habe as cor

pus. The
supreme c ourt there fore rema nded the case to the Davidson County Circuit Court and dire cted that the court appoint c ounsel and conduct a hearing w ith respec t to whether Mc L aney was indee d fre e on bail at the time he a lleg ed. The court noted tha t if the Davidson County habea s court dete rmined that the alleg ations were true, the D avidson County court should dec lare the concur rent sente nces void a nd then transfe r the case to the J eff erson County trial court for imposit ion of a leg al sentenc e should th e p e ti ti o n e r a g r e e , o r if n o le g a l p le a a g r e e me n t c o u ld b e r e a c h e d
, th e p e ti ti o n e r must be allowed to withdra w the orig inal plea. Mc L aney , 59 S.W .3d at 92-95.

We are unable to asc erta in from the re cord be fore us whether the petitioner wa s out on bond for c ase 27110 when any of t he other felony offe nses were commit ted. Additionally , the petitioner alleg es that his g uiltyplea wa s a re sult of a p l ea barg ain. I ncluded in the plea ag ree ment was the provision that all of the sentenc es would be se rved c oncurr ently

. Howeve r, as the tr ial judge did not hold a hea

ring on this iss ue, we cannot resolve it on the record before us. There fore , the judg ment of the ha be a s c ou rt su mma

ri ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ion fo r w ri t of ha be a s c or pu s is re ve rs e d, a nd thi s

case is remande d to the Circuit Court o f Da v idson Countyfor a ppointment of counsel and a n

ev id e n ti ar y h e ar in g

. T h e h ab e a s c o u r t n o te d in it s o r d e r th a t th e “ o n ly r e li e f a f f o r d e d a petitioner when se eking habea s corpus relief is discha rg e from custody .” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-122(a ). Howeve r, “a lthough the c ommitm ent of t he per son detained ma y have be en irre g ular, still, if the court or judg e is satisfied, fr om the examination, that the p er son oug ht to be held to bail, or committed, either for

the offe nse cha

rg ed, or a ny

other, the o rd er shall be made acc ording ly .” I d. § 29-21-123. Appa

rently , the habe as court concluded tha t the petitioner wa s being validly held under the s enten c e in c a s e 2 7 1 1 0

. H o w e v e r , th e p e ti ti o n e r a ll e g e s th a t th e s e n te n c e in th a t c a s e e xp ir ed befor e the f

iling of h i s habea s corpus pe tition. The recor d befor e us does not conta in any information as to the spec ifics of the se ntence in case 2 7 1 1 0

. T h e p eti tioner filed a motion for appointment of counse l and clea rly had a r i gh t to appointed counsel if the c ourt found him to be indige nt. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R . 13, § 1(d)( 4); Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 8-14-205. Had counse l been appointed, pre s u m ab l y

he would have broug ht forth documenta tion concerning se ntence 27110. Upon our re mand, if the ha beas c orpus court finds the sentenc e to be illeg al an d fi n d s t h at the-4-

se nte nc e in c a se 27 11 0 h a s e xpir e d, the c ou rt mus t th e n r e ma nd the c a se to the Rut he rf or d Co un ty Criminal Court, where the convictions occ urre d. On re mand to the origi n al co n victing c ourt, the petitioner’s g uiltyplea may b e wi t h d ra wn if conc urre nt sentencing was a condition of his plea
ag ree ment. See e.g

. McConnell v. State, 12 S.W .3d 795, 798 (Tenn. 2000); Hende rson v. State, 220 Tenn. 520, 419 S.W.2d 176 (1967).

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE