### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE

ASATA D. LOW E v . STATE O F TENNESSE E

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Hickman County

No. 08-5091C

No. M2009- 00444-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Janau ry 13, 2010

The Appe llant, Asata D. L owe, a ppeals the tria l court' s dismis sal of his petition for ha beas c orpus relief

. T h e Ap pellant fails to asser t a cog nizable claim for which habea s corpus relief may be
g rante d. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Crim inal Ap peals

R O B E R T W. W E D E M E Y E R , J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D A V I D H. W E L L E S and J E R R Y L

. S M I T H , J J . joined.

Asata D . L owe, pr o se.

Robert E. Cooper, J r., Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Clarenc e E. L utz, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION

The Appellant was convicted of two counts first deg ree murder and one count of espec ially
ag g rava ted robber

y in 2000, and he was sentenc ed to life without the possibili ty of parole

. State v. Asata L owe, No. E2000-01591-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31051631 (Tenn. Crim. App., Sep. 16, 2002), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn., Fe b. 3, 2003). The Appell an t u n s ucce ssfully pursued postconv i ct ion relief

. See Asata L owe v. State, No. E2006-02028-CCA-Mr3- PC, 2008 WL 631169 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p

. , M ar

. 10, 2008), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn., Aug

. 25, 2008). The Appellant filed the instant pe tition for a writ of habea s corpus on November 5, 2008. The Appellant claimed h i s s entenc e has expired and/or that the judgme nts of his convictions are void beca u s e o f t h e ineffe ctive assist ance of h i s at t orney and other alleg ed errors at trial. The Appellant also claimed that those sections of the code which criminalize murder and robber y as we l l as the Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 are unconstitutional. The trial court dismiss ed the petition without a hear ing. T h e Ap pellant appea led, and the State has filed a motion to aff irm pursuant to Court of C ri m i n al Appea ls Rule 20. For the r easons state d below, the State’ s motion i s g rante d.Article I
, Section 15 of the Tenne ssee Constit ution g uara ntees the rig ht to seek habea s corpus relief
, and Tenne ssee Code Annotated Sections 29-21-101 et seq. codify the applicable proce dures for seeking such a writ. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which our law provides relief are very narr ow. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001). Habe as corpus relief is available in this state only when it appea

rs on the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proce eding s that the trial court was without jurisdiction t o convict or se ntence the def endant or that the s entenc e of imprisonment has otherwise ex p i re d

. Arc her v. State

, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). I n other words, habea s corpus relief may only be soug ht w hen the judgme nt is void, not mere ly voidable. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83(Tenn. 1999). "[W] here the alleg ations in a petition for writ of habea s corpus do
not demonstrate that the judgme nt is void, a trial court may corr ectly dismiss the petition without a hear ing." McL aney , 59 S.W .3d at 9 3

. A petitioner cannot collater ally attack a fac ially valid conviction in a habea s corpus proce eding

. Potts v. State

, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992); State ex rel. Holbrook v. Boma

r , 364 S.W .2d 887, 888 (Tenn. 1963). Unlike a post-conviction petition, the
purpose of a habea s corpus petition is to contest a void, not mere ly voidable, judgme nt. State ex rel. Newsome v. Hende rson, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (Tenn. 1968).

Having revie wed the rec ord, the Court conclude s that the trial court did not err in dismiss ing the A p p e ll a n t’ s habea s corpus petition. Even if the Appellant’s claims alleg ing ineffe ctive assistance of counsel and other trial err ors have merit, such claims would rende r the judg ments voidable, not void, and t h ey m ay not be collater ally attacke d in a suit for habea s corpus relief

. Moreove r, the Appellant’s arg ument that the criminal code violates his inalienable fre edom to commit the acts of first deg ree murder a

nd espec ially

ag g rava ted robbe ry

is pa tently frivolous. See Hall v. State, 270 S.W

. 84, 85 (Tenn. 19 25) (“The power to define what shall constitute a criminal offe nse is committed to the di scre tion of t he L eg islature, subj ect to constitutional limit ation and safeg uards, bey ond which the courts do not let the L eg islature pass.”) ; Wil liams v. State, No. 03C01-9209-CR00306, 1993 WL 243869 (Tenn. Crim. App., J uly 6, 1993). The Appellant’s blanket attacks ag ainst the constitutionality

of the c riminal statutes are without merit.

For these rea sons, the State’s motion is g rante d. The judgme nt of the trial court is aff irmed in acc ordanc e with Rule 20.



### __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ R O B E R T 

### W

. W E D E M E Y E R 

### , J U D G E

2