1



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

MANDRALL PORTER, P RO 

### S E 

### v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wayne County No. 13153 Robert

Hollow ay, Judge

No. M2003- 02525-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Jun e 22, 2004

The Petitioner, Mandr all Porter, appe al s the trial court's de nial of his petition for habe as cor pus relief

. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affir m the trial court' s denial of r elief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. After a review of the record, this court de te rm ine s th a t pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims mus t fa il. Pe tit ion e r ha s fa ile d to pr e se nt a ny e vid e nc e that hi s s e n t e n c e h a s e x p i r e d o r

t h a th i s c o n v i c t i o n f

o r e s p e c i a l l y a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y i s v o i d

. A c c o r d i n g l y, the State' s motion i s g rante d and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

RO B ERT W. WE DE ME YE R, J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WEL LES
a nd , JERR Y L. SMI TH, J J ., joined.

Mandra ll Porter, pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Helena Walton Yarbroug h, As s i s t ant Att orney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On Novembe r 20, 1996, Petitioner enter ed g uiltypleas to ag g ravated ra pe a n d ag g ravated assault. Petitioner was se ntence d to twenty -one y ear s for the ag g ravated rape conviction and three y ear s for the ag g ravated assault conviction. P et i t i o n er fi led, pro s e , a petition for writ of habea s corp us re lie f, a lle g ing that hi s c on vic tio ns fo r a g g ra vate d r ape a nda g g ra va te d a ssa ult we re vo id beca use the indictment l acked the sig nature of the trial c ourt cler k. He f urther a rg ued that the i n d i c t m e n td i d n o tru n i n t h e n a m e o f t h e S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e , a s r e q u i r e d b y T e n n
. C o n s t

. A r tV I, Sec. 12. The court dismiss ed the petition on September 11, 2003. Petitioner timely filed a notice of appe al.2

Article I , Section 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es the rig ht to seek habe as corpus r elief a nd Tenne ssee Code A nnotated Sections 29-21- 101 et seq. c od if y the app lic able proce dures f

or see king a

writ. Howe ver, the g rounds upon which our law provide s relief

are very narr ow. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A writ of ha beas c orpus may

be g rante d only

when the pe titioner has established lac k of jurisdiction for the or der of confine ment or that he is other wise entitled to immediate re lease beca use of the e x piration of his sentenc e. See Ussery

v. Avery , 22 2 T e nn . 5 0, 43 2 S. W.2 d 6 56 (1 96 8) ; State e x re l. Wa de v. No rv e ll , 1 Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 44 7, 44 3 S. W.2 d 8 39 (1 96 9) . M or e ov e r, ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f i s a va ila

ble in this state only

when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re cord tha t the trial court wa s without jurisdiction t o convict or se ntence the def endant or that the sentenc e of imprisonment has oth e rw ise e xpir e d. Ar c he r v . St a te , 85 1 S. W.2 d 1 57 , 1 64 (T e nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v. Sta te , 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . There is no contention that Petiti oner’ s sentence has expired.

Petitioner has alleg ed that his convictions for a g g ravated ra pe and a g g ravated assault ar e void because the c lerk fa iled to sign the indictments, g uiltyplea f orms and judg ment and the indictment did not run in the name of the State of Tenne ssee. How ever , a re view of the rec ord shows the court clerk’ s stamp, date, and time of filing on the g uiltyplea a nd judgme nt forms. The re cord a lso shows that the indictments ran in the name of the State of T ennesse e. More over, the sig nature of the c lerk on a n indictment is a proce dural, rather than substantive, sa feg uard. Th e re fo re , a n o bje c tio n to a de fe c t of thi s n a tur e mus t be ma de pr e -t ri a l, a ndno t in a

c oll a te ra l, post-trial habe as cor

pus petition. S ee T enn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2); Mar vin Anthony Matthews v. State, No. W2003-00106-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 WL 23100812, *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Dec . 31, 2003); Nelson B . Gra ves v. Howa rd Carlton, Warden, N o. 03C01-9705-CR-00171, 1998 WL 133840, *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Mar. 25, 1998), perm. app. de nied , (Tenn. 19 98 ). Pe tit ion e r h a s f

a ile d to pr e se nt a ny

e vid e nc e that hi s se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d o r tha t hi s conviction for e specia lly

ag g ravated robbe ry

is void. L ikewise, Petitioner’s a rg ument on appea l that the orde r dismissing his habea s corpus pe tition i s illega l because it was not sig ned by the court c lerk is without merit. Ag ain, the orde r is stamped filed by the court clerk a nd shows the date of filing. F urthermor e, the lac k of the c lerk’s sig nature , even if true, would not re nder Petitioner’s conviction void.

Ac c or din g ly , th e Sta te ’s mot ion is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d in
acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.



### ____________________________________ ROBERT W. W EDEMEYER, JUDGE3