### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

JAC KIE F . C UR RY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for John son Coun ty No. 4379 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2004-01227-CC A-R3- HC - F iled April 21, 2005

The petitioner, J ackie F. Curry , petitioned the J ohnson CountyCircuit Court for ha be as c or pu s relief from his three 2000 Knox C ounty convictions of agg ravated rape. The court dismiss ed the pe tition,
a ndthepe tit ion e r a

pp e a le d. Th e state has mo ved th is c ou rt to a ff irm th e c on vic tio ns pu rs ua nt t o Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als Rule 20. We sustain the s tate’s moti on and affirm the orde r of dis mis sa l. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f theCo ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.

J ackie F. Curry , Appellant, Pr o s e
. Mark A. Fulks, Assistant Dist rict Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

I n the petitioner’s Ma

rch 29, 2004 pe tition for habeas corpus relief , he claimed that his conviction judgme nts are void be cause the c o n v i ct i o n court violated his due pr ocess rights by excluding evide nce, the p ro secutor w ithheld exculpatory evidenc e, the pe titioner’s trial counse l rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e, the indictment violate d double jeopar dy principles by incorporating three counts, the convicting evidenc e wa s leg ally insufficient a nd materia lly varie d from the of

fense s c ha rg e d inthein di ctm ent, a ndthetria l c ou rt e rr e d ine nh a nc ing thepe tit ion e r’ s se nte nc e s a ndin imposing conse cutive sente nces. O n May 7, 2004, the habeas corpus court dismiss ed the pe tition.

“[T] he writ of [ habeas corpus ] wil l issue in Tenne ssee only when it appea rs upon the fa c e of th e ju dgmen t or th e re c or d o f the pr oc e e din g s u po n w hic h th e jud g me nt i s r e nd e re d th a t a
co n v i ct i n g co u rtwa s wi t h o u tj u ri s d i ct i o n o r a u t h o ri t y t o s en t en ce a d ef

en d an t , o r t h ata d ef

en d an t 's sentenc e of imprisonment o r ot her r estraint has e x pired.” Sta te v . R itc hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 630-2-

(T en n
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g Archer v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)). “A void judgme nt is one in which the judgme nt is fac ially invalid be cause the court lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judg ment or bec ause the defe ndant' s sentencehas expired.” Tay lor v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . I n contra st, “[a] voidable convic tion or sentence i s o n e wh i ch i s fac ially valid and require s th e int

ro du c tio n o f p ro of

be y on d th e fa c e of

there c or d o r j ud g me nt t o e sta bli sh its invalidity .” Ri tc hie , 2 0 S

. W

. 3 d at6 3 0 (q u o t i n g Taylor , 955 S.W .2d at 83). F acia l invaliditymeans that the “fact [ depriving the court of j urisdiction] must appear clea rly and indisputably

either on the fa c e of thejud g me nt o r i n th e orig ina l tria l re c or d be fo re a writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s c a n is su e fr om a Tenne ssee c ourt.” Ri tc hie , 20 S.W .3d at 633.

The burde n is o n t h e p eti tioner to establish that the judg ment is void or that the sentenc e has expired. State ex rel. Kuntz v. B omar , 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291-92 (1964). A pe tition s eeking issuance of a writ of ha be as c or pu s m a y b e s u m m ar i l y d i s m i s s e d b y a trial court if it fails to i ndicate that the petitioner' s conviction is void. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21- 109 (2000).

The c laims challeng ing the petitioner’s c onvictions do not, even if prove n, rende r the convictions void. See, e.g., Byron Edwards v . State, No . E20 04 -0 09 18 -C CA -R 3- HC (T e nn . Crim. App., Knoxvil le, Dec . 20, 2004) (holding t hat claim of m aterial varia nce is not cog nizable in habeas corpus a c tio n) ; Michae l Addison v. Parker , No. W2004-0003 2 -C C A-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., J ackson, Sept. 22, 2004) (stating t hat claims involving protections ag ainst double jeopar dy do not
re nd e r a jud g me nt v oid ); De

x te r Fra nk J

oh ns on v . S tate , No. E2004-01260- CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., Knox ville, Sept. 2, 2004) (holding t hat claims of i neff ective assistance of counsel a re not cognizable in habeas corpus pr oc e e din g s) ; Ha gg ar d v . S tate , 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 620, 475 S.W .2d 186, 1 8 7

- 8 8 ( T e n n
. Cr im

. App.1971) (c halleng e to suffic iency of evide nce not pr oper subjec t of habeas corpus action). O ur s u p re m e co u rt has re cently stated that “a

judgme nt is entitl ed to a pre s u mp ti o n o f

r e g u la r ity a n d is n o t v o idu n le s s a d e f e c t a p p e ar s o n th e f

a c e o f th e ju dg ment.” Hi c k ma n v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 16, 25 (Tenn. 2004) . Certainly , the claim that the trial court
err oneously

excluded evidenc e prof

fer ed by the petitioner at trial does not a ppear on the fac e of the jud g me nt anddo e s n ot d istur b th e pr e su mpt ionof

re g ula ri ty , e ve n th ou g h th e c la im i s so un de d in a violation of due pr ocess.

As to th e p eti tioner’s c laim that his sentences w ere illega l, we re cog nize that the inv a lid ity of these nte nc e its e lf, a s we ll a s th e br oa de r i nv a lid ity of thec on vic tio n, re su lts in a vo id judgme nt and is a suffic ient basis for ha be as c or pu s relief

. See Ste

phenson v. Carlton , 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (a void sentenc e, as w ell as a void c onviction, may result in a void judg ment and be the subject of a habeas corpus proce eding ). To be c og nizable in a habeas corpus action, an

“ il le g a l” s e n te n c e mu s t e q u a te to a “ ju r is d ic ti o n a l d e f

ect.” McL an ey v . B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . Thus, for an illega l sentence claim to support a claim for habe as cor pus relief , the illega lity of t he sentence must be egr eg ious to the point of voidness, Cox v . S tate , 53 S.W .3d 287, 2 92 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) , and our c ourts have soug ht to determine whe ther the se ntence imposed was “ bey ond the outer limits” of the sente ncing court’s authority , se e Mc Con ne ll v. Sta te , 12 S.W .3d 79 5, 79 9 ( Te nn .2 00 0) . T he pr e se nt habeas corpus petitioner has not claimed that the terms of the-3-

se nte nc es are bey on d the c ou rt ’s jurisd ic tio n. He me re ly c la ims that th e le ng ths of these nte nc e s, though w ithin authoriz ed bounds, we re e x c e s s iv edue to the misapplication of an enhanc ement fa ctor
a nd that the tria l c ou rt e rr e d in imp os ing c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s be c aus e it e rr on e ou sly fo un d h im t o be a pr ofessional c riminal. These issues do not implicate the se ntencing court’s jurisdiction.

For the above rea sons, the habeas corpus court’s or der is af firmed.

_________________

_ _____________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE