### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 15, 200 4

RA ND Y D . H UR LEY v. HO WAR D C AR LTON , WA RD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County

No. 4303 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2004-00381-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Jul y 12, 2004

The pe titioner appea ls the trial court’s dismissal of hi s petition for writ of habeas corpus. We ag ree with the habea s court that the pe titioner has failed to sta te a fac ially valid claim for ha beas c orpus relief . We affir m the habea s court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application for the writ of habe as

c or pu s.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J OHN E VERE TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I P TO N and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Randy D. Hurle y , Mountain City , Tenne ssee, Pro Se

.

Pa ul G. Sum me rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r, a nd B re nt C . Ch e rry , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, H owar d D. Carlton, Warden.

OP IN ION

The pe titioner, Randy

D. Hurle y , appea ls the J ohnson CountyCriminal Court’s dism issal of his petition for writ of habe as cor pus. A Cocke County

jury fo u n d the petitioner g uiltyof preme ditated first deg ree murder, felony murder, and arme d robbery

. State v. Hurley , 876 S.W .2d 57
, 6 0 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 3 )

. H e w a s s e n te n c e d to d e a th o n e a c h o f th e mu r d e r c o n v ic ti o n s and to a

consec utive sentenc e of twe lve y ear s for the a rmed ro b b er y conviction. I d. On appe al, the Tenne ssee Supre me Court held that the trial court erre d in imposi ng two death se ntence s for the murder of one individual. “The re was only one first-de g ree murder, a nd there should be only one punishment. There fore , we a ffirm the conviction for preme ditated first deg ree murder a nd for a rmed robbery . The c onviction for fe lony murder is va cate d and set a side.” I d. at 70.

Th e pe tit ion e r f

ile d a pe tit ion fo r w ri t of ha

be a s c or pu s c la imi ng tha t th e jud g me nts a re vo id beca use “[the petitioner] was t wice placed in jeopa rdy , was de nied his rig ht to a jury trial i.e., denie d a valid leg al/constitutional jury verdic t on the char g es, w as d enied due proce ss, substantive and proce du r a l, a n d e q u a l p r o te c ti o n o f th e la w , a n d h a s s u f f e r e d f r o m th e imp o s it io n o f c r u el andT h e r ec or d bef or e u s i s dev oi d of an y ex pl an at i on as t o wh y t h e or i g i n al s en t en ce s h av e bee n modi f i ed. U pon 1

f ur t her r es ear ch of

cour t r ecor ds, we hav e f ound t hat
, f ol l owi ng t he f i l i ng o f a pos t

- convi ct i on pet i t i on, an ag r eement was mad e bet ween t he pet i t i oner an d t he St at e f or a new t r i al

. A neg ot i at ed agr eement was ent er ed whe r eby t he pet i t i oner

wou l d n ot recei ve t he d eat h pen al t y

. J u dg e Rex H

. O g l e s et a s i de t h e or i g i n al s en t en ce s a n d, on D ec embe r 7, 1998, i m p o sed a sent ence o f

l i fe f o r t he f

i rs t d egree m urder co nvi ct i o n and a s ent ence o f s i xt een y ears f o r t he arme d rob b ery

c o n v ic tio n . T h e d e fen d a n t wa ive d his r igh t t o a p p e a l.

-2- un us ua l pu nis hme nt. ” Th e Sta te fi le d a mot ion to dis mis s, a rg uin g tha t the pe tit ion e r ha d f a ile d to

s ta te a f a c ia ll y v a li d c la im f

o r h ab e a s c o rp u s r e li e f

. T h e h ab e a s c o u r t g r a n te d the motion and dismiss ed the pe tition.

The pe titioner now appea ls the habea s court’s dismiss al of his pe tition and c ontends that the actions of the T ennesse e Supreme Court vaca ting the f elony murder c onviction and af firming the conviction for pr emeditated murder violated his r ight to a trial by jury . When review ing a

petition for habeas corpus relief, t he determination of whether relief should be g rante d is a question of law. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Hart v. State, 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2 0 0 0 ) )

. T h u s , t h i s C o u r t ’ s r e v ie w i s de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss give n to the findi n gs o f the court below. I d. The g rounds upon which ha beas c orpus re lief is war

rante d are d ec i d ed ly narr ow. The w rit will iss ue only when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judg ment or the

rec ord of th e p r o c e e d in g s u p o n w h ic h th e ju d g me n t is r e n d e r e d th a t a c o u r t la c k e d ju r is d ic tion or authority to sentence a defenda nt or t hat t he sentence has expired. Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) ; Arche r v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1 9 9 3 ). A habe as cor pus petition may

be used to challeng e judgme nts tha t a re void, not mere ly voidable. Ta y lor v. State, 995 S.W. 2 d 7 8
, 8 3 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 9 )

. “ A v o i d j u d g m e n t i s o n e i n w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n t i s f a c ia lly inv a lid beca use the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r t he judgment or be cause the def endant’ s sentenc e has e x pired.” I d. (citations om itted). By contra st, a voidable c onviction or sentenc e is one wh ic h is fa c ia lly va lid a nd thu s r e qu ir e s p ro of be y on d th e fa c e of

the re c or d o r j ud g me nt t o e sta bli sh it s in v a li d it y

. I d

. T h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f th a t th e ju d g me n t o r s e n te n c e is “ v o id
, ” rathe r than “voidable,” rests with the petitioner. Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

. Where the alleg ations in a petition f

or writ of habe as cor

pus do not demonstrate that the judg ment is void, a trial court may dismiss the petition without a hear ing. A rche r, 851 S.W.2d at 164.

The re cord be fore us contains ce rtified copie s of two judgme nts submit ted by the petitioner,

on e fo r the of

fe ns e of fi rs t de g re e mur de r a nd on e fo r the of fe ns e of a rm e d r ob be ry . T he jud g me nts

wer e ente red on D ece mber 7, 1998, and indi cate that the petitioner re ceive d a sente nce of life for the murder c onviction and six teen y ear s for the arme d robbery conviction. The judg ments submitt ed 1 by the petitioner, along with his petition for ha beas c orpus re lief, do not conc ern the actions by the Tenne ssee Supreme Court in their 1993 opinion. The judgme nts before us appea r valid on their f

ace

. There fore , based upon the fo re g oing r easoning and the r ecor d as a w hole, we a ffirm the ha beas

c ou rt ’s dis mis sa l of

the pe tit ion e r’ s a

pp lic a tio n f

or the wr it o f h abe a s c or

pu s.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE