### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove mb er 18, 200 8
DA VID CA NTR ELL v. HOWA RD CA RLT ON, WAR DEN , A ND THE

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal from t he Criminal Court for Morgan County No. 9211 E. Eugene Eb len, Jud ge

No. E2007-01926-CC A-R3- HC - Filed January 5, 2009

Pe tit ion e r, Da vidCa ntr e ll, app eals f ro m th e Mo rg a n Co un ty C ri min a l Co urt’ s d ism iss a l of his petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus. Bec au s e the petitioner failed to comply with the proce dure define d in Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 29-21-107, we a ffirm the ha beas c orpus court’s dismiss al of the pe tition.

Tenn. R. App . P. 3; Judgment of the C riminal Court Affir med

J A M ES C UR W OOD W I TT , J R ., J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W OOD ALL and R OBER T W. W EDEMEYER , JJ., joined.

David Cantre ll, Wartburg, T ennesse e, pro se

. Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Atto rn ey Ge n eral and Reporte r; and John H. Bledsoe and Deshe a Dulany, Assistant Attorneys Gene ral, for the appe llees, Howa

rd Carlton and State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

The proce dural history of the petitioner’s c ase w as re counted by this court in a r ece nt order :
On Janua ry 5, 1989, the pe titioner was co n victed of second de gree murder, two c ounts o f arson, and acc essory a fter the fac t to second degr ee mur der. The trial court sentenc ed the [petitioner] to life for the second de gree murder c on v i cti on, fiftee n year s for e ach a

rson conviction, and five year s for the acc essory a fter the fa ct conviction. Further, the trial co u rt , finding that the [petitioner] used a firea

rm in the commission of the murder , enhanc ed th e mu r d e r

s e n te n c e b y f

iv e y e ar s , ina c c o r d a n c e w ith T e nnessee Code Annotated se ctio n 3 9 -6-1710 (1986). The tria l court orde red that “ [t ]h e se nte nc e s f

or ars on a nd a c c e sso ry a ft e r t he fa c t [ we re ] t o-2- be served conse cutively, but concur rently with the life sentenc e. The five-ye ar e nhance ment [wa s] mandate d consec utive by statute

. . . [making the petitioner’s] e ffe ctive sente nce . . . life plus forty yea rs.” Sta te v . D av id C

an tre ll , No

. 89 -2 72 -I II , [s lip op

. a t 1 (T e nn . Crim. App., Nashville, July 26, 1990)].

On Marc h 14, 2006, the petitioner filed in the Morgan Cou nty Cr imi na l Court a pet iti on fo r a writ of ha be a s cor pu s, a s w e ll as two ame nded petitions. . . .

. . . . Th e re a ft e r, on Ju ly 5, 2 00 7, the State fi le d a mot ionto dismiss , contending that the pe tition di d not comply w it h the statutory require ments for ha

beas corpus petit ion beca

use t he petiti oner f

ailed to v e ri fy his pet iti on , atta c h th e jud gme nts of c on vic tio n, or

state whether t he instant petition was his first petition for habe as cor pus re lie f. Ad dit ion a lly , th e State arg ue d th a t th e pe tit ion e r f a ile d to state a basis on w h ic h h ab e a s c o rp u s r e li e f c o u ldb e g r a n te d

. U p on cons id e r a ti o n o f

th e mo ti o n s , th e tria l c o u r t f o u n d th a t th e St a te ’s motion to dismiss was we ll taken. Acc ordingly, the court dismissed the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Da vi d C a n t rel l v. Ho w a r

d C a rl t o n , Warden, and the State of Tenne ssee , No. E2007-01926- CCA-R3- PC, sl ip op. at 1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Aug. 29, 2008) (O rder denying State’s motion for aff irmance under Te nn. Ct. Crim . App. R. 20).

Th e ha be a s c or pu s cou rt gr a nte d the State ’s mot iondis mis sin g th e pe tit ionfo r w ri t of habe as corpus on July 19, 2007. The petiti oner, appare ntly without notice of the court’s or der, filed a third amended petition for habeas corpus re lief on July 24, 2007. On August 22, 2007, the petitioner filed a notice of appea l. He hand wrote on the notice, “ Please note: Althoug h the above judgme nt date is 7/19/07, petitioner did not rece ive said jud gm en t until 8/ 1/07, due to petitioner being transfe rre d to a differ ent prison petitioner’s mail wa s sent to Morg an Co. Reg ional Prison, but pe tit ion e r d id n ot r e c e ive his le g a l ma il unti l th e same wa s f or wa rd e d to thi s f

a c ili ty , N or

the a st C o r r e c t i o nC o mp l e x (N E C X )

. T h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s th e r e f

o r e t i m e l y. ” The pe titioner appea ls from the habe as cor pus court citing two grounds. First, he argue s that the trial court, during his init ial prosec ution, “ e rr on e ou sly vio late d p e tit ion e r’ s r ig ht t o a sente ncinghear ing

. . . by imposing a sentenc e of life and 40 y ear s in the absenc e of a sentenc ing he ari ngand

by de nyingpe tit ion e r h is r ight to pres e nti ngmit ig a tin g e vid e nc e in s up po rt of le ss punishment.” Secondly , the petitioner challeng es the habea s corpus c ourt’s dismissal of his petition for wr it of habea s corpus without “statingin the order the re asons for the dismiss al,” without “ente ringany

finding s of fa cts and c onclusio n s o f law,” a nd without “aff

ordingpetitioner due proce ss of

respondingto the rea sons for the dismissal befor e the e ntry of dismissal of the petition.”-3- Th e State fi rs t ar g ue s that pet iti on e r’ s noti c e of a pp e a l is un tim e ly

and the re fo re his appea l should be dismis sed. The petitioner’s noti ce of appea l was not filed until August 22, 2007, and, ac cording ly , was untimely

. SeeTenn. R. App. P. 4(c)

. Even so, Appellate Rule 4(a) provides in pertinent par

t, “[H] oweve r, in all criminal ca ses the ‘notice of appe al’ doc ument is not jur is di cti ona l and

the fi lin g of

su c h d oc ume nt m ay

be wa ive d in

the int e re st o f j us tic e .” Te nn . R. App. P. 4(a). The notice in this case w as untimely by four da y s. Howeve r, in light of the petitioner’s repr esentation that such delay was ne cessitated by

his transfer betwee n corr ectional institutions, we have re vie we d th e is su es ra ise d. Al l th ing s c on sid e re d, we be lie ve that th e int e re st o f j us tic e wi ll be be tte r s e rv e d b y

wa ivi ngthe tim e ly

fi lin g of a no tic e of a pp e a l.

“The deter

mination of

whether habea s corpus re lief should be g rante d is a question of law.” Fa ulk

ne r v . S tate , 2 2 6 S

. W

. 3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 (T en n

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Ha rt v . S tate , 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000) ). Our revie w of the habea s corpus c ourt’s dec ision is, t here fore , “de novo w ith no presumption of correc tness aff orded to the [ habea s corpus] court.” Id. (c i t i n g Kill ingswort h v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc. , 205 S.W .3d 406, 408 (Tenn. 2006) ).

The wr it of habea s corpus is constitutionally g uara nteed, seeU.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 2; T enn. Const. art. I , § 15, but has bee n regulated by statute for more than a c entury , see Us se ry v . A v e ry , 432 S.W .2d 656, 657 (Tenn. 1968) . Tenne ssee Cod e Annotated section 29-21- 101 provides that “[a]ny

person imprisoned or

rest ra i n ed of liberty , under a ny prete nse whatsoever, except in case s specifie d in § 29-21-102, may prosec ute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the
cause of such imprisonment and r estraint.” T.C.A. § 29-21-101 ( 2000). De spite the broad w ording of the statute, a

writ of habe as cor

pus may be g rante d only

when the petitioner has e stablished a lac k of jur isd icti on for th e or de r o f c on fi ne me nt o r t hat he is o the rw ise e nti tle d to imm e diate re le a se beca use of the e x pirat i o n of his sentenc e. Se e Us se ry , 4 32 S.W. 2d a t 65 8; State v. Galloway , 45 Tenn. (5 Cold.) 326 (1868). The purpose of t he st ate habeas c orpus petition is to contest a void, not
me r e ly a v o id a

b le , ju dg ment. S t a te ex

rel. Newsom v. He nderson , 424 S.W .2d 186, 189 (Tenn. 1968). A void convic tion is one which strikes at the jurisdictional integ rity of the trial c ourt. Archer
v . S tate , 8 51 S.W. 2d

15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; see Sta tee xre l. A ng lin v . M

itc he ll , 575 S.W .2d 284, 28 7 ( Te nn . 1 97 9) ; Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. A court may summarily dismi ss a petition for habe as cor pus relief without a hearing or the a ppointment of counsel whe n the petition sets forth no fa cts supporting the issuan ce o f t he writ. Se e Ra nd

allCar v e r v . S tat e , No. M2002-02891-CCA-R3-CO, slip op. at 4 (Te nn. Crim. App., Na sh vil le , M a y 1 6, 20 03 ); see T.C.A. § 29-21-109 ( 2000).

In t h e p resent case , the petitioner fails to st ate whe ther he had pre viously sought habea s corpus re lief fr om the judgments presently being challenge d. The S tate argued to the habe as corpus c ourt and maintains on appea l that the petit ion should be dismis sed bec ause pe titioner “has not stated wh et h er t h is is his first habe as cor pus petition or attache d copies of any others.” W e agre e. In this situation, he is obliged to attach to his petition “a copy o f t h e [e ar lier] pe tition and proce edings there on . . . or [give] satisfac tory rea sons . . . for the f ailure to d o s o

. ” T.C.A. § 29 -2 1- 10 7( b) (4 ) (2 00 0)

. Th e pe tit ion e r i n th is c a se ha s c ha lle ng e d th e sa me c on vic tio ns via a writ-4-

of ha be a s c or pu s p ri or to h is c ur re nt pe tit ion , a nd he ha s app e a le d the de nia l of his pe tit ionto this court. Se e Da v id J

am e s Can tre ll v . S tat e , No. E2 00 4- 01 23 4- CCA -R 3- HC , slip op . at 1 ( Te nn . Crim. App., Knoxville, Apr. 14, 2005) (gra nting the S tate’s moti on to aff irm habea s corpus c ourt’s denia l of petition pursuant to R u l e 2 0 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals). The proce dures authorizing the use of the writ of habea s corpus a re c odified in Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ctions 29-21-101 through 29- 21-130. The statutory proced u re s fo r see king habea s corpus re lief ar e mandatory and must be followed scr upulously. Hi c k

ma n v . S tat e , 153 S.W.3d 16, 19 (Tenn. 2004)

. Acc ordingly, prior t o co n s i d er ing the petitioner’s c laimed entitlement to habea s corpus re lief, the circ uit court was c onstrained to dis m i s s t h e petition because of the pe titioner’s failure to follow mandatory statutory pr ocedur e.

Under the same analysis, the petitioner also failed to comply with Code section 29- 21-107(a ) by fa iling to provide a verif ied petition. T.C.A. § 29-21-107(a). A f ailure to provide a verifie d petition provides proper grounds for dismissal. See H ickman , 153 S.W.3d at 20-21.

Th e ha be a s c or pu s c ou rt , “ [a ]f

te r re vie wi ng the pe tit ion , th e re sp on de nt’ s mo tio n to dismiss , and the r ecor d in this case ,” determined t hat t he petiti on was “not well-take n” and dismissed the petition for writ of habea s corpus. In light of the fore going analysis, we af firm the habe as cor

pus court’s dismissal.

___________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WI TT, JR., JUDGE