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

ALL EN JEAN STEP HEN S v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forWeakley County No. CR97- 2008 William B. Acree , Jr., Judge

No. W2008-02583-C CA-R 3-HC - Filed October 9, 2009

The Petitioner, Allen J ean Stephens, appea ls the trial court’s de nial of his petition for habe as corpus r elief. The s t at e has f iled a motion reque sting that this court a ffirm the tria l court’s de nial of re lief pursua

nt to Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We conc lude that the state’ s motion is meritorious. Acc ording ly , we g rant the state ’s motion and aff irm the judg ment of the low e r c ourt

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ff

ir me d Pur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f C r im ina l A ppe als

J. C. M C L IN , J., delivere d the opinion of t he court, in which J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS and C AM I LLE R. M C M ULLEN , JJ., joined.

Allen Jea n Stephens, Pro Se, Henning, Te nnessee

. Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter ; an d Kevin McAlpin, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llant State of Tenne ssee.

M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION

The history of the pe titioner’s claim wa s set out by this court in a previous memorandum op ini on a ff

ir min g th e de nia l of

the pe tit ion e r’ s f

ir st p e tit ion f

or hab eas cor

pu s r e lie f f

ile d in Laude rdale County:

The Petitioner, Allen Je an Stephens, wa s convicted of one count of

possession of more than .5 gr ams of coc aine with intent to sell and one count of possession of drug pa ra ph e rn a li a. Th e tria l c ou rt se nte nc e d th e Pe tit ion e r a s a rang e II of

fe nd e r t o twenty-thre e yea

rs for the felony d ru g conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days fo r themis de me a no r pos se ssi on c on vic tio n. Th is C ou rt a ff ir me d th e jud gme nts of convic tions and the sentenc es imposed by the trial c ourt. See State v. Allen J ean Stephens
, No. M 2004-00531-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL1541850 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jac kson, J u n. 23, 2005), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. D ec. 5, 2005)

. Subsequently, the Petitioner sought post-c onviction r elief, alleging that trial counsel2

was inef fec tive. The lowe r court denied re lief and this C o u rt aff irmed the lowe r
c o u r t’ s d e n ia l. See Al le n J e an Ste ph e ns v . S tat e , N o. W 20 06 -0 27 73 -C CA -R 3- PC, 2007 WL 2872368 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oc t. 3, 2007), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Feb. 25, 2008)

.

Se e Al le n J

e an Ste ph e ns v . S tat e , No. W2008-02492-CCA-R3-HC, 2009 WL 1026008, at *1 (Tenn. Cr im. Ap p. , at Ja c ks on , April 15, 20 09 ). On Se pte mbe r 10, 20 08 , th e pe tit ion e r f ile d, in the Cir c uit Court of Laude rdale County, a petition for habe as cor pus relief

. The Lauderda le C ounty trial court denied r elief. O n appea l, this cour t af fi rm ed t he Lauderda le County trial court’s dismissal of the petition for habe as cor

pus relief

. Id.

On Ju ne 2, 20 08
, thr e e mon ths prior to fi lin g h is pro se pe tit ionfo r h abe a s c or pu s r e lie f i n Laude rdale County the petitioner filed, in the Circuit C o u rt of We akley County, a pro se petition entitled “Petition for Relief f rom Conviction or Sentence , Habe as Corpus Relief”

. On J une 17, 2008, the W e ak le y Co u n ty tria l c o u r t s u mm ar il y d is mi s s e d th e p e ti ti o n f in d in g th a t “ [ b ] e cause the pe tit ion e r i s c ur

re ntl y inc arc e ra

te d inLaud e rd a le Cou nty , th e Cir c uit Cou rt fo r W e akle y Co un ty i s without jurisdiction[,]” and that “ the petition fails to assert a meritorious claim.” The petitioner then filed a motion to set aside or cor rec t the order

dismiss ing his petiti on asserting that “the Court has mis c on str ue d h is p e tit iona s a Pe tit ion fo r H abe a s Co rp us Re lie f[ ,] ” a ndfu rthe r a sse rt ing “ that hi s petition was draf

ted to be a Petition for Post Conviction Re lief.” On July 10, 2008, the Circuit Court of We akley County enter ed an or der de nying the motion stating i ts findings: (1) the court lac ked j urisdiction to hear the petition; (2) the petitioner failed to assert a meritorious claim; and (3) the petitioner had pr eviousl y fi l ed a petition for post-c onviction relief w hich was de nied af ter a n evidentiary hearing and af firmed by the C ourt of C riminal Appea ls on October 3, 2007. On July 14, 2008, the petitioner filed a notice of appea l. O n September 29, 2008, he filed a motion to re- open his post conviction petition. In the curre nt appea l, the petit ioner raises t he following i ssues which we ha ve summarize d:

(1 ) wh e the r the tr ia l cou rt e rr e d insu mma ri ly d ism iss ing the pr o s e ple a din g f or po st conviction re lief/habe as cor pus relief , without the appointment of cou n s el or the ho ldi ng of

a n e vid e nti ary he ari ng ;
(2 ) w he the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d inde ny ing th e pe tit ion e r’ s mo tio n to se t a sid e its order summarily dismi ssing his petit ion;

(3) whe ther the trial court erre d by “not proc essing his corre cted ( titled) Petiti on for Pos t Co nv ic tio n Re lie f” ;
(4 ) w he the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d infaili ng to g rant hi s mo tion t o r e -o pe n h is f ir st petition for post conviction relief ; and

(5) “ [w]he ther the tria l court abuse d its discretion in the handling of this case upon Collateral re view[.] ”3

The state ha s filed a motion reque sting that this court aff irm the lower c ourt’s denia l of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als. As basis for its motion, the
state asse rts that the trial court was “f ree to interpret the petition a s one for habea s corpus re lief, and finding that it did not ha ve jurisdiction, .

. . [to] dismiss [ ] the petition.” The state further notes that “[m]e anwhile, this Court has af firmed by memor andum opinion the denial of a petition for habe as corpus r elief f

iled in the proper

county conce rning this petitioner.” The state ar gues the trial c ourt properly dismi ssed the petition in Wea kley County and the judgment should be af firmed.

Article I , section 15 of the Tenne ssee Constitution guarantee s the right to seek ha beas c orpus
re lie f. Te nn e ssee Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio ns 29 -2 1- 10 1 th ro ug h 2 9- 21 -1 30 c od if y th e app lic able proce dures f

or see king a writ. Howe ver, the grounds upon which a writ of habe as cor pus may be issued are very na

rrow. Tay lor

v . S tat e , 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only when it appea rs on the fa ce of

the judgment or the re cord of the proc eedings upon which the judgment wa s rende red that a court was without jurisd i ct i o n t o convict or sentence the defe ndant, or that the de fendant is sti ll imprisoned d es p i t e t he expir ation of his sentenc e. See Su mm e rs v . S tat e , 212 S.W .3 d 251 , 2 55 (T e nn . 2 00 7) ; Ar c he r v . S tat e , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 19 93 ); Po tts v . S tat e , 8 33 S.W .2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . T he pu rp os e of a ha be a s cor pu s pet iti on is
to c ontest void and not me rely voidable judgments. Archer
, 851 S.W.2d at 163. A void judgment is a fac ially invalid judgment, clea rly showing that a court did not have statutory authority to render such judgment; where as, a voidable judgment is fac ially va lid, r equiring proof be yond the fa ce of the re cord or judgment to establish its invalidity. See Taylor , 995 S.W.2d at 83. The bur den is on the petitioner to establish by a pr eponder ance of the e vidence , “that the se ntence is void or that the confine ment is ill egal.” Wy att v . S tat e , 2 4 S. W .3 d 3 19, 32 2 (Ten n. 20 00 ). Mo re ov e r, it i s permissib le f

o r a c o u r t to s u mm ar il y d is mi s s a p e ti ti o n f o r h ab e a s c o rp u s r e li e f
, w ith o ut the appointment of cou n sel and without an e videntiary he aring, if the pe titioner does not state a cogniza ble claim. Se e Su mm e rs , 2 12 S.W .3 d at 26 0; Hi c k ma n v . S tat e , 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004).

Initially, we note that this court addre ssed many of the petitioner’s a rguments in aff

irming the denial of t he petiti oner’ s claim for habea s corpus relief f iled in Lauder dale County. See A llen J e an Ste ph e ns v . S tat e , 2009 WL 1026008, at *2-4. We wi l l n o t revisit issues decide d in that opinion, nor will we revie w i s s u es t h at have been pr eviously decide d and disposed of on dire ct appea l or on appe al from the de nial of post-convic tion relief. Id. at *2; (citing L o n g v . S tat e , 510 S.W .2 d 8 3, 87 (Tenn. C ri m. A pp .1 97 4) ); se e ge ne ra lly Al le n J e an Ste ph e ns v . S tat e , 2007 WL 28 72 36 8; State v. Allen J ean Stephe ns, 2005 WL 1541850.

The trial c ourt dismissed the petition seeking habea s corpus relief beca use it was not filed in t h e co unty near est the petitioner. The petition revea ls that the petitioner is incarc erated at the West Te nnessee State Prison in Henning, Tennesse e. Howe ver, the petition was filed in We akley County rather tha n in Lauder dale County wher e the prison is located. The pe titioner did not make the application “to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance t o t h e applicant,” and failed to provide “a suf

ficient re ason . . . in the peti t i o n fo r n o t ap p lying to such court or judge.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-105. We have r epeatedly held that the proce dural require ments for ha beas

co rp us relief

are mandatory and must be scrupulously followed. Su mm e rs , 2 1 2 S. W .3d at 259 (citation omitted). Ther efor e, the tria l cou rt ’s summary dismissal of the petition seeking habe as4

c or pu s r e lie f i n th is ca se wa s pro pe r be c aus e it fa ile d to c omp ly w iththe pr oc e du ra l r e qu ir e me nts

. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the pe tition or in denying the moti on to set aside or c orre ct the orde r summarily dismissi ng the petition.

The pe titioner asserts that the trial court err ed in f ailing to consider his pe tition a petition for post conviction relief . We disa gree . Even if h i s p et i t i o n wer e tre ated a s a new petition for po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f a s r e qu e ste d b y th e pe tit ion e r, it i s bar re d be c aus e the pe tit ion e r i s li mit e d to a single petit ion for post-c onviction relief pe r judgment. Se e Le sli e v . S tat e , 36 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Tenn. 2000) (c iting Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202( c) ( 1997)). As r ecogniz ed by the t rial court, a petition for post-c onviction relief ha s alrea dy been pur sued to conc lusion. See also Allen J ean Stephe ns v. Sta te , 2007 WL 2872368. The petition c annot proce ed as an attempt to r eopen his pr evious petition for post-c onviction relief be cause he has f ailed to allege a ground upon which such motion may be grante d. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-117 (2006); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 2( C). Tenne ssee Code An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 30 -117 go ve rn s mo tio ns to r e op e n a po st- c on vic tio n p e tit ion . A mot ion to

re op e n a prior po st- c on vic tio n p e tit ionma y o nly be fi le d if the pe tit ion e r a lle ge s th a t: (1) a final ruling of an appellate court establishes a constit utional right that was not

re c og niz e d a s e xis tin g at th e tim e of tr ia l a ndre tr os pe c tiv e app lic a tio n o f the ri gh t is require d; or

(2) ne w scientific e vidence exists establishing that the petitioner is actua lly innocent of the c onvicted off

ense( s); or

(3) the petitioner’s sentence was enhance d based upon a prior convic tion which has subsequently bee n found invalid.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117(a )(1- 3). As rele vant i n this case , in order to reope n his petition, the petitioner would be r equire d to establish that there ha d been a final appe l l at e co u rt ruling that established a c onstitut ional right which wa s not recogniz ed as existing at t he ti me of trial a nd that
retroa ctive application of t hat right was r equire d. Id. at §§ 40-30-102( b)(1) , 40-30-117( a)( 1) (2006)

. If the c laim is based upon a ne w co nstitut ional rule of la w, the cla im must be brought within one year of the ruling esta

blishing t hat right. Id . at § 40-30-1 1 7 (a )( 1 ). If the claim is based upon an invalid prior conviction, the c laim must be brought within one year of the ruling holding the prior conviction invalid. Id. a t § 40 -3 0- 11 7( a )( 3) . The pe tit ion e r a rg ue s th a t hi s se nte nc e vio la te s Bl ake ly v. Washington , 542 U. S. 296 (2 00 4)

. Cou rt s in Ten ne sse e ha ve he ld that Blakelyv. Washington and it progeny do not ap p l y retroa ctively to case s that are on collater al appe al. See D onald Branch v. Sta te , No. W2003- 03042-CCA-R3-PC, 2004 WL 2996894, at *10 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Jackson, De c. 2 1, 2004), perm. app. de nied , ( Te nn . M a y 2 3, 20 05 ); Carl J oh ns on v . S tat e , No. W2003-02760- CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 181699, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jan. 25, 2005),
p erm. a p p

. d enied , (Tenn. June 27, 2005). The pe titioner’s attempt to reope n fails as he has not alleged a ground under which a post -convic tion petition may be reope ned. Finally, beca use there

was no fac ially c ognizable claim, the petitioner was not e ntitled to appointment of c ounsel. Se e Bi lly Jame s Matthews v. Turner , No. W 20 04 -0 15 47 -C CA -R 3- HC , 200 5 W L 9 57 11 2, a t *2 (T e nn . Crim. App., at Jac kson, Apr. 26, 2005) ( citations omitt ed).

CONCLUSION5

When an opi n i o n would have no pr ece dential value, the Court of Criminal Appeals may

a ff ir m th e ju dg men t or a c tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt by me mor a nd um o pin ionwh e n th e jud gme nt i s
re nd e re d o r the a c tio n ta

ke n ina pr oc e e din g w ith ou t a

jury a ndsu c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a determination of gui lt, and the evidenc e does not preponde rate against t he finding of the trial judge. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R

. 2 0

. We conclude that this case satisfies the criteria of Rule 20. Ac c or din gly , it

is o rd e re d th a t th e state ’s mot ion is gr a nte d. Th e jud gme nt of the W e akle y Co un ty tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d ina c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ J.C. McLIN, JUDG E