1



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

AT JAC KSON

DA RWIN THEU S v. DA VID MILLS , WA RD EN
Direc t Appeal fromthe Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 5989 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2005-02204-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 23, 2006

The Petitioner, Da

rwin Theus, a

ppeals the trial court's d en i al of his petition for habe as corpus r elief. TheState has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial c ourt' s denial o f r el i ef p u rs u an t t o R u l e 2 0 , R u l es o f th e C o u rt o f C ri m i n al Ap p ea l s
. P et i t i o n erh as fa i l ed t o al l ege an y gro u n dth atwo u l d re n d erth e j u d gm en t s o f c o n v i ct i o n v o i d

. Ac co rd i n gl y , we gra n tth e S t at e's motiona nda ff

irm th e jud g me nt o f thelow e r c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of the Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opi n i o n o f t he court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.
Darwin Theus, pro se

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter ; Sophia S. Lee, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral, for

the appellee , the State of Te nnessee
.

M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION

OnMa rc h 6 , 1 98 9, thePe tition e r, Da rw in T he us , e nte re d g uil ty ple a s to one c ou nt o f a ssa ult with intent to commitfirst deg reemurder, two c ounts of robberywith a dea dly wea pon and four co u n t s o f a ggra v at edrap e. Fo r t h es e c o n v i ct i o n s , th e tr i al co u rt s en t en ce d th e P et i t i o n er , as a r an ge I of fe nd e r, to f

if ty y e ars c on fi ne me nt f

or thec on vic tio n of as sault wi th int e nt to co mmi t mu rd e r, to thirty -five y ear s confine ment for each of the two convictions of r obbery with a dea dly

wea pon and1

T he not i ce of

appeal document was s t amp
- f i l ed on Sept emb er 16 , 20 05 , by t he t r i al cour t cl er k. T he cer t i f i cat e of s er vi ce sig n e d b y the P e tit io n e r re flec ts a d a te o f A u g u st 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , f o r d e live ry o f t h e no tice o f ap p e a l d o c u m e n t. O n a p p e a l, t h e St at e does n ot c on t es t t h e t i mel i n es s of t h e n ot i ce of

a ppea l doc u men t

. Rat h er , t h e St at e con ce des t h e t i mel i n es s of t he no t i ce o f

ap p ea l d o cu m en t wit h c i t ati o n to R ule 2 0 (g), T en ne ssee R ules o f A p p ell ate P ro ce d ure
. T his R ule p ro vid es, i n pa rt , t hat pa p ers fi l ed b y a p ro se l i t i gant incarcerat ed i n a co rr ect i o nal faci l i t y are deem ed f i l ed at t he t i m e o f

de l i very t o t he appropri at e i ndi vi dual at t he corr ect i onal faci l i t y
. Ad di t i onal l y , we not e t hat t he t i mel y f i l i ng of a n ot i ce of

appeal d o c u m e n t i n c rim ina l m a tter s a re no t ju risd ic tio n a l an d m a y b e w a ive d b y this C o u rt in t h e inte re st o f ju stice

. See T enn. R . A p p . P . 4 (a ).

2 T h e P e tit io n e r h a s ab and o ned hi s cl ai m ba sed up o n Bl ake ly v. Was hi ngt on a n d h i s c l a i m t h a t h e w a s c on v i c t e d o f an offens e t hat ha d been abo l i s hed b y t he l egi s l at ur e. N ot wi t hs t andi ng , we not e t hat su ch cl ai ms woul d not ha ve ent i t l ed P e tit io n e r to ha b e a s c o rp u s re lief. F irst, a n y c la im tha t his se n te n c e s w e re e n h a n c e d in v io la tio n o f h is r igh t to a j u ry tria l, i.e., B la k e ly vio la tio n , w o u ld re n d e r th e ju d g m e n t vo id a b le a n d no t vo id

. See, e. g. , W ayf ord D em on bruen, Jr

. v. St at e, N o . M 2 0 0 4 -0 3 0 3 7 -C C A -R 3 -H C , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 5 4 1 8 7 3 (T e n n . C rim . A p p ., at N a sh v ill e , Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ); S ta n le y H a rv e ll
v. G l en T u rn er, N o . W 2 0 0 4 -0 2 6 4 3 -C C A -R 3 -H C , 2 0 0 5 W L 8 3 9 8 9 1 (T e n n . C rim . A p p ., at J a c k so n , A p r. 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 ); E a rl D a v id C ra w

fo rd v . R ic ky B e ll, N o. M 2004- 02440- CC A- R3- H C, 2005 W L 354106 ( T en n
. Cr i m. App. , a t N as h v i l l e, Fe b. 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 ). Likewi se, t he P et i t i o ner’ s cl ai m t hat he was co nvi ct ed o f a cri m e t hat was no l o nger an o f fense is wit ho ut mer i t

. T h e Pet i t i on er wa s c on v i ct ed of a s s au l t w i t h i n t en t t o mu r der , T

. C. A. § 39- 2- 103 ( r epeal ed 1989) , on M ar ch 6, 1 9 8 9

. T he o f

fense was co m m i t t ed o n A p ri l 2 , 1 9 8 8

. T he 1 9 8 9 revi si o n t o t he T enness ee C ri m i nal C o d e ab o l i shi ng t he
o ff e n se d id no t t a k e e ff

e c t un til N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 8 9 . 1 9 8 9 T e n n . P u b . A c ts 5 9 1

.

2 to forty y ear s confineme nt for ea ch of the four c onvictions of ag g ravated ra pe. Thetrial court f

urther or de re d th at th e se nte nc e s b e se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y re su lti ng in an e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e of

fi fty y e ars
. On A u g u s t 3 , 2 0 0 5 , th e Pe ti ti o n e r f il e da n ap p li c a ti o n f

o r w rit o f h ab e a s c o rp u s r elief

“ se e k[in g ] re lie f f

ro m th e imp os iti onof

a n il le g a l se nte nc e of

c on vic tio n” a nd a sse rting that “ he is be ing he ld i n r e str a int

of his lib e rty

pu rs uant t o a

jud g me nt o f s e nte nc e , w hic h is con st it ut io nal ly void.” In support of his application, the Petitioner a rg ued that the se ntence s imposed by the trial c ou rt we rere nd e re d il le g a l pu rs uant t o th e ne w r ule of la w a nn ou nc e d in theUn ite d St a te s Su pr e me Court decision of Blakelyv. W ashington. Irre g ardle ss of voidness based upon the Bl ake ly decision, the P etitioner also asserted t hat the sente nces imposed we re void a s the “sente nces [wer e] imposed in d ir e c t c on tr a ve nti onto thestatut ory g uid e lin e s.
. . .” F inally , th e Pe tition er ma int a ine d th a t hi s conviction for theoffe nse of a ssault with intent to commit murder was void in that the off ense ha d been a bolished by

the state leg islature at the time his conviction and sentenc e wer e enter ed. By order enter ed August 11, 2005, the l ower court de nied habe as cor pus relief , finding that the Petitioner’s se nte nc e s h a d n ot e xpir e d andthat th e c ri min a l cou rt ha d jurisd ic tio n to sen te nc e thePe tition e r t o the sentenc es he rec eived. Petit ioner timely filed a noticeof appe al document. On appe al bef ore 1 this Court, t he Petitioner asse rts that the sente n ces imposed by the trial court werein direct c on tr a ve nti onof

thestatut ory

g uid e lin e s. 2
The rig ht to seek habea s corpus r elief is g uaranteed by articleI , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constit ution. Hi c k

ma n v . S tate ,153 S.W .3d 16, 19 (Tenn. 2004) . Howeve r, the g rounds upon which3

habea s corpus re lief will be g rante d arenarr ow. Id. at 20 (c itations omi tted). R el i ef will onlybe g rante d if the petition establishes that t he challeng ed judgment is void. Id. A j ud g me nt i s v oid“ on ly when ‘ [i ]tappea

rs upon the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which t he j u d gm en t i s rende red’ that a convic ting c ourt was without jurisdiction or authority to sentencea defe ndant, or that a

defe ndant’s sente nce of imprisonment or other r estraint has e x pired.” Id. (q u o t i n g S ta t e v . R i t c hie , 20 S .W.3d62 4, 63 0 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) (c itatio ns omi tte d) ). Un lik e thepo stc on vic tio n pet it io n, thepu rp os e of theha be a s c or pu s p e titionis t o c on te st a vo id, no t me re ly voidable, judg ment. S ta te ex re l. Ne ws o m e v . H

e n derson, 2 2 1 T en n. 24, 424 S.W .2d 186, 189 (1968).
The petiti oner has the burden of establishi ng either a void judgment or an illeg al conf

inement by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e. Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). I f the pe titioner car ries this burden, heis entitled to im mediate r elea se. Id. Howeve r, if the ha be a s c or pu s p e titionfails to dem on st rat e that th e jud g me nt i s v oidor tha t th e c on fi ne me nt i s illegal, neither a

ppointment of counsel nor an evidentiary hearing are require d and the trial court may properly dismiss the petition. Hickm an, 15 3 S.W.3 d at 20 (c iti ng T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 9 ( 20 00 ); Dixon v. Holland , 7 0 S. W.3 d 3 3, 36 (T e nn . 2 00 2) ); Pa ssa re lla , 891 S.W .2d at 619.

The State asserts, in part, that the petition f or habea s corpus r elief should be dismissed as the Petitioner failed to comply with the proce dural re quirements for filing an application for

habea s corpus r elief. A lternatively , the S tate arg ues t hat t he P etitioner fails to state a c og nizable claim for habea s corpus re lief. The trial court c hose to resolve the petition on the merits, without c oncern for proce dural deficienc ies or for the opportuni ty to corre ct such de ficienc ies. Se e Hi c k ma n v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 1 5 , 2 1 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 4 )

. In s u c h in s tan c e s , a n ap p e ll a te c o u rt s h o u ld n o t th e n r e ly o n such de fi c ie nc ie s to de fe at an a

pp e a l the re of

, bu t sh ou ld re vie w there a so ns re lie d u po n b y thelow e r c ou rt

. See Tyrone D. Conley v . Howard Carlt on, W arden , N o
. E 2 0 0 5

- 0 0 0 4 9

- CCA-R3-HC, 20 0 5 WL 2862967, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Nov. 2, 2005) (Tipton, J ., concur ring ). We proce ed a c c o r d i n g l y.

The P etition e r

a s s e rts th at th e s e n te n c e s imp o s e db y th e trial c o u rt a

r e il le g a l i n th a t the sentenc es i mposed constitute a term of confine ment highe r than the statutory minimum sentenc e. The Petitioner’s a

rg ument is based upon the 1989 Sentenc ing Re form Ac t. The Petitioner was convicted and sentenc ed on Mar ch 6, 1989, prior to the November 1, 1989, eff ective date of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Ac t. Accor dingly , the 1982 Sentencing Act, and not the 1989 Sente ncing Act re l i ed u p o n b y

th e P et i t i o n er , ap p l i e s
. T h e 1 9 8 2 S en t en ci n g Ac tp ro v i d ed a s en t en ci n g ra n ge betwee n five (5) y ear s and life imprisonment for theoffe nse of assault with intent to commit murder,
see T.C.A. 39-2-103( b)( repeale d 1989); a sente nce of “death by

elec trocution, or the jury may commute the punishment to imprisonment for life or f or anyperiod of time not less than ten ( 10) y ear s” for the offe nse of robbery with a dea dly

wea pon, see T.C.A. § 39-2-501( a) ( repeale d 1989); and a se ntenceof “imprisonment in the penitentiary for life or a pe riod of not less than twenty (20)4

y ear s” for

the offe nse of a g g ravated ra pe, see T. C

. A. § 39-2-603( b) ( repeale d 1989). The Petitioner’s sentenc es fe ll within t he statutory sentenc ing limits for these c onvictions.

Th e 19 82 Se nte nc ing Ac t pr ov ide d th at a stand ardrang e I

of fe nd e r w ou ld b e se ntenc e d to a term of imprisonment “not l ess t han the minimum sentenc e esta blished by

law, and not morethan the minimum s entenc e plus one-half (1⁄2) of the diffe renc e betwe en the maximum s entenc e and the minimum sentenc e.” T .C.A. § 40-35-109(a ) ( repeale d 1989). A life se ntencewas pre sumed to be six ty (60) y ear s. T.C.A. § 40-35-109(d) (1) ( repeale d 1989). Ac co rdi ng ly , the Petitioner’s sentenc es for

ag g ravated ra

pe and r obbery

with a dea dly

wea pon fell within the statutory sentenc ing limit s for a

rang e I standard of

fende r. Although the fifty (50) y ear sentenc e excee ded the maximum th irty

- tw o a n do n e
- h a lf

y e ar s e n te n c e f

o r a r a n g e I s tan d ar doffe nder, see T.C.A. § 39-2-103( b); T.C.A. § 40-35-109( a), theTenne ssee Supre me Court has held that off ender cl assi fications and rele ase e ligibility “ar e non-jurisdictional and legitimate barg aining tools in plea neg otiations” under both the 1989 and 1982 Sentenc ing A cts. See B land v. Duke s , 97 S .W. 3d13 3, 13 4 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p
. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Mc Con ne ll v . S tate , 1 2 S. W.3 d 7 95 , 7 98 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; Hi c k s v . S tate , 945 S.W .2d 70 6, 70 9 (T e nn . 1 99 7) ); State v. Mahle r , 735 S.W .2d 226, 228 (Tenn. 1987). Thus, “a know ing and voluntary g uiltyplea waives any

irreg ularity

as to offe nder c lass i fication or relea se elig ibilit y .” Hicks , 9 45 S.W. 2dat 70 9. Th e Pe tition e r c ou ld p ro pe rl y a g re e to b e se nte nc e d o uts idehis sentenc ing r ang e provided that the sentenc e imposed fell within the statutory limitapplicableto the conviction offe nse.
Upon consider ation of the re cord, the pleading s and the a pplicable law , this Court concludes that the Petitioner has failed to e stablish that he is entitled to habeas c orpus re lief. Hehas neither established that his eff

ective f ifty (50) y ear sentenc e has e x pired nor has he established that the trial c ou rt wa s w ith ou t jurisd ic tio n or auth ority to e nte r the se nte nc e s imp os e d. Th e tria l c ou rt pr op e rl y determined that the Petitioner had failed to e stablish his entitlement to habea s corpus re lief. When an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, theCourt of Criminal Appeals may af fi rm the judgme nt or ac tion of the trial court by memorandum opinion whe n the judg ment is render ed or the action take n in a proc eeding without a jury and such judg ment or ac tion is nota dete rmination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not pr eponder ate ag ainst the finding of the trial judg e. See Te nn . R. Ct. Crim

. App . 20. We c on c lud e that th is c a se satis fi e s th e c ri te ri a of Rul e 20 . A c c or din g ly , it is order ed that the State’ s motion i s g rante d. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE