### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE RIC HAR D A . C HILDR ESS v. R ICKY BELL , WA RD EN Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 3557 Mar k J. Fishburn, Ju dge

No. M2005- 00421-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Septem ber 22, 2005

The De fendant, Richard A. Childress, appe als from the tria l court’s dismissal of his petition seeking habea s corpus re lief. The State has filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court’ s dismiss al of the petition pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of t he C ourt of Criminal Appea ls. The State’s motion is g rante d. 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 Cr im ina l C our t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim . App. R. D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J . , joined.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

Th e pe tit ionfo r h abe a s c or pu s r e lie f a lle g e s th a t th e De fe nd a nt, Ric ha rdA. Chi ld ress, pleade d g uiltyto and was c onvicted of se cond deg ree murder o n Ap ri l 8, 1998. Acc ording to the petition, the Defe ndant re ceive d a sente nce of twenty -five y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. The De fendant’s arg ument in his petiti on and on appe al is that he is e ntitled to habea s corpus relief beca

use hi s sentenc e wa s imposed under the Te nnessee Sentencing Reform Ac t of 1989, which he alleg es i s unconstitutional in view of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). He thu s a lle g e s th at hi s se nte nc e wa s imp os e d in vio la tio n of his ri g ht to a jury tr ia l a s se t f orth i n Blakely

. Article 1, se ction 15 of the Tenne ssee Constit ution gua rante es the rig ht to seek habe as cor pus relief and Te nnessee Code Annotated se ctions 29-21-201 e t seq. codify the applica

ble proc edure s for se eking a writ. However , the g rounds upon which our law pro v i d es re l i ef a

re ve ry narr ow. Tay lor v. State , 9 95 S.W. 2d 78 , 83 (T e nn . 19 99 ). Ha be a s c or pu s re lie f is a va ila

ble in Te nn e sse e on ly when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt is rende red that (1) the convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence-2-

a def endant; or ( 2) the de fendant’s sentenc e has e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)

. Thus, the g rounds upon which ha beas c orpus re lief will be g rante d are very narr ow. State v. Ritc hie , 2 0 S. W.3 d 6 24 , 6 30 (T e nn . 2 00 0) . It is pe rm iss ibl e fo r a tr ia l c ou rt

to s umm ari ly dismiss a petition for ha

beas c orpus re lief, withou t t h e ap p o intment of counsel and w ithout an evidentiary

hearing, if

there is nothing on t he face of the judg ment to indicate that the c onvictions addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). The Te nnessee Supreme Court has de termined that the B lakely decision did not annou n ce a new rule of la w and that Te nnessee ’s sentenc ing struc ture, unde r which the Def en dant was s e n te n c e d , d o e s n o t v io late a d e f e n d a n t’ s s ixth a me n d me n t rig h t t o a ju r y tria l. Se e St a te v . G o me z, 16 3 S. W. 3 d 6 32 (T e nn . 2 00 5) . T his c ou rt ha s p re vio us ly

he ld that B lakely do es no t app ly retroa ctively

to case s on collatera l appea l. See Donald B ranc h v. State , N o . W2 0 0 3

- 03042-CCA-R3- PC, 2004 W L

2996894, at *10 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, D ec. 21, 2004) , perm. to appe al d e n ie d , ( T e n n. 2005); se e a ls o Ca r l Jo h n s o n v . St a te , N o . W2 0 0 3

- 0 2 7 6 0

- CC A

- R3

- PC , 2 0 0 5 WL 181699, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Jan. 25, 2005), perm to appeal de nied, (Te nn. 2005). There fore , the habe as cor pus court did not err

in deny ing the Def

endant ha beas c orpus re lief. Ac c or din g ly , th e State ’s mot ionis g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d in a 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.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE