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

LEE A . A LDE RS ON V. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2002-A- 332 Monte Wat kin s, Jud ge

No. M2005- 01763-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Janu ary 17, 2006

This matter is befor e the Court upon the State’s m otion to aff irm the j udg ment of t he trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petitioner ha s a pp e a le d th e tria l c ou rt ’s or de r s umm ari ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ionfo r the writ o f h abe a s c or pu s. I n th a t pe tit ion , th e pe tit ion e r a lle g e s that his jud g me nt w a s v oida ndthat hi s se nte nc e wa s il le g a l. Up on a re vie w of the re c or d in thi s c a se we are pe rs ua de d that the tr ia l c ou rt wa s c or re c t in summarily dismiss ing the habea s corpus petition and that this case mee ts the criteria for a ffirma nce pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 20 , Rules of th e Co urt o f C ri min a l A pp e a ls. Ac c or din g ly , th e State ’s mot ionis g rante d, and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

L ee A . Alderson, Pro Se, Na shville, Tennessee

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Christ o p her D aniel Lins, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On Au g ust 2, 20 02 , th e pe tit ion e r p le d g uil ty to o ne c ou nt o f d ome sti c a ssa ult , a Cla ss A misdemeanor. A s a re sult, he was sen t en ced a s a Rang e I standard of

fende r to nine months incar cer ation with a thirty perc ent re lease elig ibilit y

. Sub se qu e ntl y , th e pe tit ion e r f ile d a pr o s e pe tit ion fo r pos t- c on vic tio n re lie f, a lle g ing that hi s judgme nt was void bec ause the judgme nt form was not sig ned b y t h e judge and that the sentenc e imposed on him was illega l because the judg ment form stated “ no period of inc arc erat i o n to be-2-

serve d prior to re lease on probation.” The petitioner ar g ued that this statement on the judg ment form meant that the se ntence should run concur rently rathe r than c onsecutively to a pre vious se ntence for a par ole violation. The trial c ourt dismissed the petition, determining that the challeng ed judg ment
wa s n ot v oid . T he tr ial cou rt de te rm ine d th a t th e fo rm wa s si g ne d b y

thejud g e a ndsp e c if

ic a lly state d th a t th e nin e -m on th sent e nc e wa s to be se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to the se nte nc e fo r the pa ro le vio la tio n. Th e pe tit ion e r f ile d a tim e ly no tic e of app e a l.

On app eal , th e pe tit ion e r a g a in c on te nd s th a t he is e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f b e c aus e the judg ment form states “ no period of inc arc eration to be served prior to rele ase on probation,” and that hi s d ome sti c a ssa

ult se nte nc e sh ou ld h a ve ru n c on curr ent ly wi th h is s e nte nc e fo r the pa ro le violation. He also ar g ues that the trial c ourt sho u l d h ave c onstrued his petition for writ of ha beas corpus a s a petition for post-c onviction relief.

A writ of habea s corpus is available only when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the
rec ord that the c onvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the de fendant or that the def endant is still imprisoned despite t he ex piration of his sentenc e. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pott s v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). Howeve r, if af ter a revie w of the habea s petitioner’s filings the trial court determines that the petitioner would not beentitled to r e lie f, the n th e pe tit ionma y be su mma

ri ly dis mis se d. Te nn . Co de An n. § 2 9- 21 -1 09 ; State e x re l. B yrdv. B oma

r, 38 1 S. W.2 d 2 80 (T e nn . 1 96 4) . F urthe r, a tria l c ou rt

ma y su mma ri ly dis mis s a petition for writ of habea s corpus without the appointment of a la wy er and without an evidentiary hearing if there is nothing on the fa ce of the ju dg ment to indicate that the c onvictions addresse d there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), supe rce ded by statute as stated in State v. Steven S

. Newma n, No. 02C 01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).
A petitioner h as the burde n of establishing by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e that the judgme nt he attac ks i s v o i d or that his term of imprisonment has e x pired. State e x rel. Kuntz v. B oma r, 38 1 S.W.2 d 290 , 291 (T e nn . 196 4)

. I f the pe tit ion e r f a ils to e sta

bli sh that hi s c on vic tio n is void or his term of imprisonment has ex pired, he is not entitl ed to immediate re lease . Passare lla, 891 S.W .2d at 627-28.

“A void judg ment ‘is one in w hich the judgme nt is fa cially invalid because the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority

to rende r the judg ment or bec ause the defe ndant’s sente nce ha s expi red.’ We h a ve re c og nize d th a t a se nte nc e imp os e d indir e c t c on tr a ve nti on of a statut e , fo r e xamp le , is vo id and illeg al.” Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) ).

Further, the pr ocedur al re quirements for habea s corpus re lief ar e mandatory and must be scrupulously

followed. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 15, 19-20 (Te nn. 2004); Arc her, 851 S.W.2d at 165. The f

ormal requirements for an application or petit ion for writ of habe as cor pus are found at Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 29-21-107:T he t ech ni cal r ecor d bef ore t hi s Co ur t cont ai ns t wo j udgment f orms : t he ori gi nal s i gn ed j udgment form t hat 1
i s a fo rm f

i l l ed i n by hand and what ap p ears t o be an el ect ronic vers i o n of t he judgm ent fo rm f i l l ed i n ei t her us i ng a
co m p ut er or t y p ewri t er. O n t he el ect ronic vers i o n, i n t he b o x fo r t he sent ence, t he fo l l o wi ng ap p ears und er t he head i ng “S e n te n c e L e n g th:”

Y ea r s :

__ M on t h s : 9 D ay s : __ Hour s : __ W ee k Ends : __ Per i odi c:

__ M an dat or y M i n i mu m Se n t en ce : (a ppl i ca bl e t o T

. C. A. 39- 17- 417, 39- 13- 513 an d 39- 13- 514 i n Sc h ool Z o n e ) : NO P eri o d of Incarcerat i o n t o be Served P ri o r t o R el ease on P rob at i o n (M i sdem eano r O nl y ).

T he el ect r oni c v er s i on al s o i ndi cat es t hat t he s ent enc e i s t o be s er ved cons ecu t i ve t o “ parol e v i ol at i on. ” W e fai l t o s ee
a n y s u bs t a n t i v e di f

fe r e n c e i n t h e e l e c t r on i c v e r s i on of t h e j u dg me n t for m a n d t h e or i g i n a l v e r s i on of t h e j u dg me n t for m.

-3- (a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, sig ned by either the party

for whose be nefit it is intended, or some per son on the petitioner’s be half, a nd verifie d by a ff ida vit

. (b) The petition shall state: (1) That the person in whose behalf the writ i s s oug ht, is il leg ally restrained of liberty , and the pe rson by

whom and plac e whe re r estraine d, mentioning the name of such per son, if known, and if unknow n, d es cribing the pe rson with as much pa rt ic ula ri ty a s p ra c tic able ; (2) The cause or pre tense of suc h restraint accor ding to t h e best information of the applicant, and if it be by virtue of any leg al proce ss, a copy there of shall be a nnexed,
or a satis fa c tory

re a so n g ive n f

or its abs e nc e ; (3 ) T hat the leg ality

of the re straint has not alre ady been a djudge d upon a prior proce eding of the same char acte r, to the best of the applicant’s knowledg e and be lief; and (4) That it is the first application for the writ, or, if a previous application has been made, a copy of t he petiti on and procee dings there shall be produc ed, or satisfactory
rea sons should be g iven for the failure to do so.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-107. “Ahabea s corpus c ourt may properly choose to dism iss a petition for f ailing to c omply

with the statutory

proce dural re quirements

. . . .” Hickman, 153 S.W.3d at 21.

Fi rs t , we note that the petitioner her ein fa iled to adher e to the mandatory require ments for habea s corpus pe titions under Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107. The petitioner fa iled to s ta te that th is i s th e fi rs t app lic a tio n fo r ha be a s c or pu s re lie f, faile d to s ta te wh e the r the le g a lit y of his restraint had alre ady been adjudg ed upon a prior proce eding of t he same char acte r and did not g ive satisfac tory

rea sons f or failing to c omply with the mandates of section 29-21- 107. Furthermore , the orig inal, signe d judgme nt form clea rly states that the sente nce f or domestic assault is t o run “Consecutive to: Parole Violation” and lists the sentenc e leng th as “9 months @ 30%.” 1

L astly , the petition for writ of habeas corpus could not have been considered a s a petition for post-conviction re lief as it wa s filed outside the statute of limit ations for such relief . The judg ment-4-

in the petitioner’s c ase w as ente red on A ug ust 2, 2002, and the petitioner did not file his petit ion
un til Ma y 12 , 200 5, we ll out sid e the on e -y e ar statut e of lim itatio ns fo r p os t- c on vic tio n p ro c e e din g s. Se e Te nn . Code An n. § 4 0- 30 -1 02 (a ). Th e pe tit ion e r a rg ue s th a t du e pr oc e ss c on sid e ratio ns sh ou ld be suff icient to allow him to circumvent the statute of limit ations. We disagr ee. The petiti oner ha s prese nted no evidenc e that any of the three statutory exceptions to the lim itations period appea ring i n T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o t a t e d s e c t i o n 4 0

- 3 0

- 1 0 2 ( b ) s h o u l d ap p l y.
Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls p ro vid e s in te r a lia :

The Court, with the concur renc e of all judge s participating in the case , when an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, may aff irm the judgme nt or

action of the trial court by

memorandum opinion rathe r than by formal opinion, when:
The judg ment is render ed or the action taken in a proc eeding befor e thetria l ju dg e wi tho ut a

jury , a ndsu c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a de t e rm i n ati o no f

g uil t, andthe e vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t the finding of the trial judg e. . . .
We determine that this case m ee t s t he criteria of the above- quoted rule and, there fore , we g rant the State’ s motion filed under Rule 20. We aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE