1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

JOHN E . L YN CH v. TO NYPA RKE R, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. R.D. 6071 Joe H. Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2006-01869-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled May 31, 2007

T h e Pe ti ti o n e r , Jo h nE

. Ly n c h , a p p e a ls th e lo w e r

c o urt' s d e n ia l o f

h is p e ti ti o nf

o r h a b e a s c o rpus re lie f. Th e State ha s f

ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ng that this Court a ff ir m the tr ia l c ourt

purs ua nt t o Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f t

he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Th e Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to a sse rt a

g ro un d th a t w ou ld
e nti tle him

to h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s d ism iss a l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e ntof t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua ntto Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

J ohn E. Ly

nch, pro se

. Robert E. Cooper, J r., Att orney Gene ral & Reporte r; Michae l Moore, Solicitor Gene ral; B rian Clay J ohnson, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION

Fr om the rec ord bef

ore this Court, it appear s that, i n No v em b er2005, the Petitioner was sentenc ed by the M arsha ll County Circuit Court, as a multipl e offender , to three year s confineme ntT he P et i t i o ner as ser t s t hat he was i nd i ct ed on o ne co unt of vi o l at i o n hab i t ual t raf f i c o f f end er and o ne co unt dri vi ng 1

o n re vo ke d l i ce nse , 8 o f f en se. H e e ntere d guil t y plea s t o b o t h o f f en ses. T he t rial co urt m erg ed t he t w o co nv i cti o ns. th
2 resulting from a guilty

plea to a violation of ha

bitual traff

ic offe nder. No appe al was taken. The

1 Petitioner aver s that he filed a motion for sentenc e reduc tion a nd a petition f

or post-conviction re lief, ho we ve r, the re c or d b e fo re thi s Co ur t f a ils to s o r e fl e c t. T he Pe tit ion e r a lle g e s th a t pr ior to h is guil ty plea, he had been convicted in previous y ear s of driving on a revoked li cense and driving under the influence . Specifica lly , the Petitioner was c onvicted in 1998 of drivingafte r beingdecla red a habitual motor vehicle offe nder a nd driving while intox icated, sixth offe nse; and, in 2000, he wa s c onvic te d o f d

ri vin g a ft e r b e ingde c lare d a ha bit ual mo to r ve hic le of

fe nd e r a nd dr ivi ngwh ile int oxic a te d, se ve nth of

fe ns e
. In 19 96 , the Pe tit ion e r ha d be e n de c lare d a ha bit ua l mo to r vehi c le offe nder.
On July 11 , 2 00 6, the Pe tit ion e r f ile d a pe tit ion fo r h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f i n th e L aud erd a le County Circuit Court. I n the petition, the Petitioner alleg ed that the November 2005 judgme nt of conviction was void. He argued that “the punishment imposed on [c]ount two [ driving on a re voked license] is not authorized by law for this [p] articula

r crime.” Indeed, he asser ted that “[c]ount t wo is a class A misdemea

nor and I am punished under

a 35% felony

sentenc e for

same.” The Petitioner further claimed that the judg ment was void as the initiating 1996 judgme nt declar ing the Petitioner a habitual motor ve hicle off ender was void.

In an orde r ente red July

18, 2006, the lower

court de nied habe as cor

pus relief . In denying relief , the trial cour

t entere d the followingfinding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law:

He a lle g e s th a t th e or de r i ssu e d d e c lari ng him to be an ha bit ua l of fe nd e r by Ma rs ha ll Coun t y C ri m i n al Court in Febr uary 1996 is a void order . He attached the order , which has his nam e as t h e d ef endant, but in the body

of the orde r has the na

me of David R. L edfor d. He states that the conviction in 2005 sh o u l db e i n validated beca use he ha s never

been de clar ed an ha

bitual of fende r, since the wrongname wa s used in the body

of the orde r.
The attack of the order declaring petitioner to be a n habitual offe nder must be f iled in the court of c onviction. This c ourt has no jurisdiction over that matter; a nd does not have the f

ile, and is unawa

re whether

a cor rec ted orde r has be en filed.
Wit h reg ard to the curr ent conviction in 2005 as a multiple offe nder, ha beas c orpus relief is not available.
Th e Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l do c ume nt.
The de termination of whe ther to g rant ha beas c orpus re lief is a question of law

. McLaney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) , overruled in part by, Sum mers v. State, 212 S.W .3d 251 (Tenn. 2007). The T ennesse e Constituti on g uara n t ee s a convic ted cr iminal defenda nt the rig ht to seek3

habea s corpus re lief. SeeTenn. Const. art. I , § 15. Howeve r, t he grounds upon which habe as cor pus relief will be g rante d are very

narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A petition for ha beas c o rpus re lief may

only be g rante d when the judg ment is shown to be void, rather than
mere ly voidable. Id. A judg ment is void only when it appe ars upon the fa ce of the judg ment or the
rec ord of the pr ocee dings upon which the judg ment is rende red that the convictingcourt wa s without jurisdiction or authority

to sentenc e a defe ndant or that a def endant' s sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 85 1 S. W.2 d 1 57 , 164 (T e nn . 199 3) . On the oth e r hand , a void a ble jud g me nt o r s e nte nc e is one which is fa cially

valid and which r equire s evidenc e b ey o n d the fa ce of the judg ment or the
rec ord of the pr ocee dings to e stablish its invalidity

. Tay lor , 995 S.W .2d at 83.
A p e t i t i o n e r

b e a r s t h e b u r d e no f

e s t a b l i s h i n g a v o i d j u d g m e n to r

i l l e g a l c o n f

i n e m e n tb y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. W yatt v. State, 24 S.W. 3d 31 9, 32 2 (T e nn . 200 0) . F ur the rm or e , it

is permissible for a

court to summarily

dismiss a habe as corpus petition, without the appointment of counsel a nd without an evidentiary hear ing, if there is nothingon the fa ce of the re cord or

judgme nt to indi ca t e t h at the convic tions or sentence s addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. The Petitioner alleg es that he was s entenc ed to three y ear s for the misdemeanor c onviction of drivingon a re voked license , eig hth offe nse. The judgments of c onviction clear ly ref lect that the lower court proper ly merg ed this misdemea nor offe nse with the felony conviction for violatingthe habitual motor vehicle act. See State v . Gree n , 9 4 7 S. W. 2 d 1 8 6 , 1 9 0 ( T e n n
. Cr im

. App. 1997). Acc ording ly , the t hree y ear sentenc e imposed for

violating the ha

bitual motor vehicle off

ender act is not il leg al or void.

Ne xt, th e Pe tit ion e r a sse rt s th a t 19 96 or de r d e c lari nghim to b e a ha bit ua l mo tor ve hic le offe nder is void due to a cl er ical er ror. Spec ifically , the orde r identifies the Petitioner a s J ohn E. Ly nch in the ca

ption and twice in the first para g raph of the orde r. Howe ver, in the se cond par ag raph, the offe nder is identified a s David R. L edfor d. Notwithstanding this cler ical erro r, the Petitioner signe d th e or de r a c kn ow le dg ingthat th e a ll eg a tio ns we re we ll- fo un de d a g a ins t hi m. It is we ll established that cler ical err ors do not g ive rise to void judgme nts. Mc Chr ist ian v . S tate , 159 S.W .3d 60 8, 61 0 ( Te nn
. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ). Thus , the Pe tit ion e r’ s a lle g a tio ns fa il to s tate a c og niza ble c la im for ha beas c orpus re lief.
The Petitioner’s se ntence has not expired and the tria l court was with jurisdiction to enter the judgme nt ag ainst him. For these reasons, the lower court’s dis missal of the Petitioner’s r equest for habea s corpus re lief wa s proper
. When an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, the Court of Crimi n al Ap peals may
a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt by

me mor and

um o pin ion

wh e n th e jud g me nt i s re nd e re d o r t

he a c tio n ta

ke n in a pr oc e e di ng wi tho ut a

jur y and su c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a deter mination of guilt, and the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the findi ng of t he trial judge. See Te n n
. R. Ct

. Cr im

. Ap p
. 2 0

. We c o n c lu d e th a t th is c a s e s a ti s f ie s th e c r it e r ia o f Rule 20.4

Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d th a t the S tate ' s mo tio n is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is aff irmed in ac corda

nce w ith Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, J UDGE