### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 14, 200 6



### BRIAN ROBERS ON v

. HOWA RD CA RLT ON, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County

No. 4865 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2006-01551-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Jul y 12, 2007

The pe titioner, Br ian Roberson, a ppeals the Johnson Count y Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for ha beas c orpus re lief fr om his guilty pleas to two counts of se lling cocai n e an d o n e count of possession of coca ine. He contends that his judg ments of conviction are void beca use his sentenc es
are illega l. Upon revie w of the re cord a nd the par ties’ brief s, we re verse the judg ment of the ha beas corpus c ourt and re mand this case to the Johnson Count y Crimina l C o u rt for the a ppointment of

co u n s el an d

an ev i d en t i ar

y h ea ri n g.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s R e ve r se d and Ca se Re m ande d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., joined. J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., filed a dissenting opinion.

Br ian Roberson, Pro Se.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Pr e sto n Sh ipp , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; and Joe C. C rumley , J r., District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

On Ap ri l 10 , 1 99 7, a

Willi a mso n Co un ty

Cr imi na l Co ur

t jur y c on vic te d the pe tit ion e r in c a se number I -496-117 of selling coca ine, and the t rial court sentenc ed him in J une 1997 to eig ht and oneha lf y e ars in c on fi ne me nt. On Au g us t 12 , 1 99 7, the petitio ne r w a s c on vic te d b y a jur y in c a se number I -1196-398- A on count 7, selling coca ine. The Williamson C ounty Criminal Court sent en ce d him to nine y ear s in prison and order ed that he se rve the sentenc e conse cutively to the pr e vio us se nte nc e . O n Jan ua ry 14 , 1 99 8, the pe tit ion e r p le d guil ty in c a se numbe r I -1 19 6- 39 8- A t o count 1, s al e o f co ca i n e; count 3, sale of coc aine; and c ount 5, possession of coca ine. The Wil liamson County Criminal Court sentence d him to eight y ear s for c ounts 1 and 3 and to three y ear s-2-

for c ount 5. The trial c ourt order ed that he se rve the eig ht-y ear sentenc es conc urre ntly

to eac h other and that he serve the three -y ear sentenc e consec utively to the eig ht-y ear sentenc es. Ac cordingto the jud g me nt fo rm s for c ounts 1 an d 3, the tr ia l court a lso or de re d tha t the y be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y to “AL LOTHER PREVI OUSL Y I MPOSED SENTENCES.” The judg ment forms for counts 1, 3, and 5 show that the appe llant committed those offense s on Augu s t 8 , 1 9 9 6 ; Aug ust 26, 1996; and S e p t e mb e r

1 3 , 1 9 9 6 , r e s p e c t i v e l y. On April 3, 2006, the pe titi o n er fi l ed a pro se pe tition for a writ of ha beas c orpus in the J o h n s o nC o u n t y

C r i m i n a l C o u rt , a l l e g i n g t h a th i s s e n t e n c e s f o r c o u n t s 1 , 3 , an d

5 i nc a s e n u m b e r

I11 96 -3 98 -Aare ill e g a l be c a us e he c omm itt e d tho se of fe ns e s wh ile he wa s o n b a il f or the of fe ns e in

c a se numbe r I -4 96 -1 17 and , th e re fo re , mu st s e rv e the se nte nc e s con se c uti ve ly to t he se nte nc e in c a se
numbe r I -4 96 -1 17

. I n su

pp or t of his argume nt, the pe tit ion e r fi le d the fo llo wi nge xhibi ts w ithhis petition: the judgment for ms for counts 1, 3, 5, and 7 f rom ca se number I -1196-398- A; the judg ment form for case number I -496-117; and a copy of an a ppear ance bond for c ase numbe r I -496-117.
On May 9, 2006, the J ohnson County Criminal Court filed a wr i t t en orde r dismissing the petition with li ttle expl anation. The petitioner timely appea led to this court, arguing that pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-20-111(b) a nd Tenne ssee Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32(c) (3)( C), he was re quired to ser ve the se ntence s for c ounts 1, 3, and 5 in case number I -1196-398- A conse cutively

to the sentenc e in I -496-117 a nd, there fore , that the sentenc es ar e illeg al.

II. Ana lys is

Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 20 -1 11 (b ) p ro vid e s th a t if a defe ndant c omm its a felony while on bail “and the defe ndant is c onvicted of both of fense s, the trial judge

. . . shall order that th e se nte nc e s be se rv e d c umu la tiv e ly .” Th e Te nn e sse e Rul e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure 32 (c )( 3) a lso provides that
[w] hen a defe ndant is c onvicted of multiple offense s from one tria l or

when the de fenda

nt has ad d i t i o n al sentenc es not y et fully serve d as the re sult of convictions in the same or o t h er courts and the law require s consec utive sentences, t he sente nce sha ll be consec utive wh e the r the jud g me nt e xplic itl y so or de rs or no t. Th is ru le sh a ll

a p p l y:

. . . (C) to a sente nce f

or a f elony co m m itted while the def endant wa s rele ased on ba il and the def endant is convic ted of both off enses[.]

Th e purp os e of

a ha be a s c or pus petitio n is to c on te st v oid and no t me re ly

vo ida ble judgme nts. Arche r v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 163 (Tenn. 1993) (c iting State ex rel. Ne wsom v. Hende rson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968)). Ha beas corpus relief is a

vailable only

when-3-

it a pp e ars on the fa c e of

the jud g me nt o r t

he re c or d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ictio n to convict or se ntence the def endant or that his sentence has expired. Arc her, 851 S.W.2d at 164. The burden is on the pe titioner to es t ab l i s h t h at t he judg ment is void or that the sentenc e has e x pired. State e x re l. K

un tz v. B oma

r, 38 1 S. W.2 d 2 90 , 2 91 -9 2 ( 19 64 ). A tri a l court may su mma ri ly dis mis s a petition for wr it of habea s corpus without the appointment of counsel a nd without an evidentiar

y hear ing if there is not hing on the fac e of the judgme nt to indicate that the convic tions addressed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

I n t h e rece nt case of Summers v. State, 212 S.W .3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) , our supre me cour t
a tte mpt e d to e xpla in w he n th e a pp oin tme nt of c ou

ns e l and an e vid e nti ary he ari ng are ne c e ssa ry in

a ha be a s c or pu s c a se

. I n Sum me rs , the pe tit ion e r f ile d a pr o s e pe tit ion

fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s, alleg ing that he was be ing held in confine ment for three offenses when he committ ed a subse quent
esca pe of f e n s e a n d , th e r e f

o r e , th a t c o n c u r

r e n t s e n te n c in g f

o r th e e s c a p e c o n v ic ti o nw a s in

direc t contravention of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-111( b) (2000) and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)( 3)(C). I d. at 256. Concluding that the trial court pr operly dismiss ed the pe titi o n without the appointment of

c ouns e l and

an e vid e nti a

ry he ari ng , o ur

su pr e me c ourt

state d a s f

oll ow s: Although the judgme nt on Summ ers’ esca pe convic tion state s that the sentenc e i s t o be ser ved conc urre ntly

with his sentences f

or voluntary manslaug hter, a g g ravated ar son, and sale of coc aine, the judgme nt is sil ent as to whe ther Summers commi t t ed the escape while beingheld for the ot her charg es. W e conclude, ther efor e, that

no i l l ega l i t y

of the sente nce is e vident on the fa ce of the judg ment order ing a

concur rent sente nce f

or the e scape conv i ct ion. Fur thermore , nothing in the r ecor d ind ic a te s th a t S ummers committed the esc ape w hile being held for the other charg es. The State be ars no burden of showing that the rec ord of the proce eding s upon which the judgme nt w as re ndere d reve als that Summers’ fa ctual asse rtions are false. T he burde n rests with Summers to p rove that his allegations

are true. B eca

use the esc ape judg ment is facia lly valid and Summers failed to support his fa ctual asse rtions with pertinent documents fr om the re cord of

the under ly ing pr ocee dings, w e conc lude that summary dismiss al was pr oper.

I d. at 262.
Turning to the instant case, the judgmen t form in case number I -496-117 shows that the pe tit ion e r c omm itt e d th a t of fe ns e on De c e mbe r 18 , 19 95

. Ac c or din g to the a pp e ara nc e bo nd fo r c a se number I -496-117, the petitioner was rele ased on a $10,000 bond on May 16, 1996. Although the judgme nt forms for c ounts 1, 3, and 5 in case number I -1196-398- A ar e s i l en t as to whether the pe tit ion e r c omm itt e d th os e of fe ns e s w hil e he wa s o n b on d in c a se numbe r I -4 96 -1 17 , the jud g me nts state that the pe titioner committed those offe nses on Aug ust 8, Aug ust 26, and September 13, 1996,

re sp e c tiv e ly . T hu s, un lik e Summe rs , th e pe tit io ner in thi s c a se ha s atta c he d d oc ume nts to h is-4-

petition which indicate that his a lleg ations are true and that he was on bond in case number I -496- 11 7 w he n he c omm itt e d the of fe ns e s in ca se numbe r I -1 19 6- 39 8- A. Mo re ov e r, the jud g me nt f or ms fo r c ounts 1 a

nd 3 s pe c if ic a lly state that th e pe tit ion e r i s to se rv e tho se se nte nc e s c on c ur re ntl y to a ll previously

imposed sentence s. Thus, the t rial court’s order ing the petitioner to serve the sentenc es in counts 1 and 3 conc urre ntly with all previous sentenc es would appea r to contravene T ennesse e Code Annotated se ction 40-20-111( b) and Tenne ssee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c) (3)( C), and the judg ments of conviction in those case s would be void. The sentenc e for count 5, howeve r, is not illega l beca

use the judg ment form for that conviction only shows that the trial court or dere d that the sentenc e be se rved c onsecutively to counts 1 and 3. I t doe s not state that the petitioner is to serve that sentenc e conc urre ntly with all other pre vious sentence s and, there fore , is not void on i ts face

.
The State make s sever al ar g uments as to why the trial cour

t properly denied the pe tition for habea s corpus relief

. First, the State contends that the pe titioner has fa iled to meet the mandatory proce dural require ments for habea s corpus relief beca use he failed to prope rly

verify his petition by aff idavit as requir ed by

Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 29-21-107( a). H oweve r, the trial c ourt’s

sc ant o rd e r d e nyingha

be as corpus r e lie f s ta te s o nly that th e tr ia l c ourt

de nie d r e lie f b e c a

us e

“ [n]othin g in t

he pe tit ion

wo uld su pp or t a fi nd ingby

thi s c ourt that pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio n is vo id

or that hi s se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d. ” Th e tr ia l c ourt did no t dis mis s the pe tit ion on pr oc e dura l g ro un ds

. “In such instance s, an appe llate cour t should not then rely on such def iciencie s to defeat an appe al the re of , b ut s ho uld

re vie w the re a so ns re lie d u po n b y the lowe r c ourt .” Da

rw in T he us v. Da

vid Mil l s , W ar d en, No. W2005-02204-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 Te nn. Crim. App. L EXI S 253, at **6-7 (Jackson, Mar. 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 ) (c iting Ty rone D . Conley

v. Howar d Carlton, Warden, No. E2005-00049-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 Te nn. Cr i m

. Ap p. L EXI S 1157 (Knox ville, Nov. 2, 2005) (Tipton, J ., concur

ring )); see Der

rick L . Br own v. State, No. W2005-01871-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 302, at **3-4 (Jackson, Apr. 13, 2006). T here fore , we will not dismiss the pe tit ion on pr oc e dura l g ro un ds

.
Th e State a lso c on te nd s th a t habeas corp us re lie f i s n ot a pp ro pr ia te in t

his c a se be c a

us e althoug h the judg ments for c ounts 1 and 3 in case number I -1196-398- A state that those se ntence s will run concur

rently to “all other previously imposed sentenc es,” they do not specific ally state that the sentenc es will be ser

ved concur

rently with the sentenc e in c ase numbe r I -496-117. How ever , by using the word “ all,” it appea rs on the fa ce of

the judg ments for counts 1 and 3 that those sentenc es will r un concur rently with the sentenc e in ca se number I -496-117, a previously

imposed sentence

. Next, the State claims that this iss ue is moot beca use the pe titioner’s eig ht and one- half-y ear sentenc e in ca se number I -496-117 e x pired in De cembe r 2005, five months bef ore t h e p e ti tione r filed his habea s corpus pe tition. However, be cause all of th e s en t ence s for the pe titioner’s cha lleng ed

c on vic tio ns ha d not y e t expir e d whe n he fi le d his p e tit ion , w e re fu se to h old that th e iss ue is m oo t. See Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 258.
Finally , the State contends that the petitioner’s c laim “is a cla ssic voidability claim, an attack of the g uilty

plea, whic h may only be brought in a ti mely -filed petition for post-conviction relief .” Ho we ve r, e ve n if

the State is co rr e c t in that the pe tit ion e r is atta c kin g the vo lun tari ne ss o f h is p le a s,-5-

that fac t is irreleva

nt in a habea s corpus proc eeding . I d. at 259. “I n s t ead, the deter minative issue is whether the plea ag ree ment included an illega l sentenc e as a material element. I f so, the illeg al sentenc e re nders the guilty plea, includingthe conviction, invalid.” I d. There fore , having conclude d from the r ecor d that the petitioner ha s sufficient l y at t ac hed docume nts to his petit ion that support his claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief, the ha

beas c orp u s co u rt’s dismissal of the petition is reverse d.

Acc ording ly , this case is remanded to the Johnson C ounty Criminal Court for the

a pp oin tme nt o f c ouns e l and an e vid e nti ary

he ari ngin o rd e r t o d e te rm ine wh e the r t he pet it io ne r i s
e nti tle d to re lie f. I f t

he John so n Co un ty Crimi na l Co ur t c on c lud e s th a t ha

be a s c or pu s r e lie f i f

wa rr ante d, that c ourt mus t re mand the c a se to the Willi a mso n Co un ty Cr imi na l Co ur

t to c on du c t a hear ing in or der to deter

mine whether

the petitioner’s ple a ag ree ment included the illeg al sentenc es in counts 1 and 3 as a

materia l element. I f so, the entire g uilty plea a nd the petitioner’s c onvictions for c ounts 1, 3, and 5 are invalid. See id. at 258 (stating that “[w]hen a plea a g ree ment constitutes a pac kag e dea l, an i l l ega l sentenc e imposed on one of the plea of

fense s g ener ally

invalidates the entire ple a ag ree ment”). The peti tioner ca n then withdraw

his guilty

pleas a nd the under ly ing convictions will be vac ated, or the par ties can a g ree to le g al sentenc es to r eplac e the illeg al sentenc es and a w ithdrawa l of the g uilty pleas will be unnece ssary

. See id. at 259. I f, howeve r, the trial c ourt deter mines that the illega l se ntence s wer e not a barg ained- for element of the plea ag ree ment, then only the petitioner’s sentenc es are void a nd the underly

ing convictions rema in intac t. I d

. (citing Smit h v. L ewis, 202 S. W

. 3 d 1 2 4 (T en n . 2006)). In that situation, the ill eg al sentenc es will be

vacated, and the Williamson Count y Criminal Court can re sentenc e the pe titioner.

III. Conclusi on

B a se d u po n the re c or d and the pa

rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e re ve rs e the jud g me nt o f t he John so n Co un ty Criminal Court and remand this ca se for the appointment of c ounsel, an evidentiary hear ing, and any further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGL E, J UDGE