### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 28, 200 4 JAM ES D . L . P ERR Y v. HOWA RD CA RLT ON, WAR DEN Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County No. 4345 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2004-01000-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Novem ber 22, 2004
The pe ti ti o n e r , Ja me s D

. L

. Pe rr y , ap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e Jo h n s o n Co u n ty Crim in a l C o u r t’ s dismiss al of his petition for habe as cor p u s re l i ef

. The pe titioner attacks his two convic tions for possession with intent to sell one-ha lf or m ore gr ams of cocaine within one thous and fe et of a school for whic h he re ceive d concur rent twe nty -y ear

terms. He c ontends that the first coc aine c onviction is void because he wa s entrappe d, that the sec ond cocaine conviction is v o i d beca use he w as convicted of a crime for which he was not indicte d, and that both convictions ar e void bec ause he was co n v ic te d u n d e r

a s tatu te w h ic h h e c laim s w a s in ap p li c ab le

. We a f f irm th e tria l c ourt’s dismiss al of the pe tition. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W E L L ES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.
J ames D. L . Perry , Mountain City , Tenne ssee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter , and Kathy D. Asling er, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION
A Joh ns on Cou nty

jury c on vic te d th e pe tit ion e r o f t wo c ou nts of po sse ssi on wi th i nte nt t o sell one-ha lf or more g rams of c ocaine within one thousand fee t of a school, a Class A felony , and one count of

possession of marijuana , a C lass A m isdemeanor

. The convictions were aff irmed on app e a l. Se e Sta te v. Jame s Da vid L a mor Pe rry , No

. E1 99 9- 00 27 1- CCA -R 3- CD , Su lli va n Co un ty (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. Se pt. 5, 20 00). Th e pet it ion e r f ile d a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit iona lle g ing that hi s c oc a ine re la te d c on vic tio ns a ndre su lti ng se nte nc e s w e re vo id , an d th e tr ia l c ou rt su mma ri ly dis mis se d th e pe tit ion . O n a pp e a l, the pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d indis mis sin g his petition. The state conte nds that the trial court’s dismiss al w as p ro p er b eca use the pe titioner was-2-

proper ly indicted, that entra

pment would only

rende r the pe titioner’s conviction voi dable, a nd that the petitioner a lrea dy

litigated the statutory

issue on direc t appea l. We ag ree with the state.
The trial c ourt may

summarily

dismiss a petition for writ of habea s corpus relief when the pe tit ion e r d oe s n ot s ta te a c og niza ble c la im. Pa ssa

re lla v. State , 89 1 S. W.2 d 6 19 , 6 27 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ). A p e tit ion fo r the writ o f h abe a s c or pu s may on ly be br ou g ht i f the jud g me nt i s v oid or the sente nce ha s expi red. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). H oweve r, if the claimed il l ega lityrende rs the judg ment or sentenc e voidable, r ather than void, no relief

can be g rante d. I d. at 161. “I f the fa ce of the record shows that the court did not have jurisdiction, then the judgme nt is void.” Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W .2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998). Thus, we examine the rec ord to determine whether the judg ments are void.
Th e pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t hi s f ir st c oc a ine c on vic tio n is vo id b e c a us e of e ntr apme nt. Entrapment , h o we ver, w ould only rende r the de fendant’s convictions voidable, rather than void. Arc her, 851 S.W.2d at 161. Be cause the trial court had jurisdiction to sentencethe def endant a fter the jury found him g uilty , his sentence is not void. S ee D ykes, 978 S.W.2d at 529. The pe titioner next contends that his s econd coca ine conviction is void because he w as not pr op e rl y ind ic te d. Th e pe tit ion e r r e lie s o n th e orig ina l pr e se ntm e nt d a te d N ov e mbe r 1 9, 19 97 , in which the p et i tioner wa s indicted for one count of possession with intent to sell one-half or more g rams of cocaine within one thousand fee t of a school, a Class A felony , and one c ount of possession wi th i nte nt t o s e ll o ne -h a lf or mor e g rams o f c oc a ine , a Cla ss B fe lon y . Wh ile the pe ti ti one r i s corr ect that the origina l presentment doe s not support his second Class A felony conviction, he f

ailed to disclose that the orig inal prese ntment was ame nded.
We m a y take jud ic ia l no tic e of

the pe tit ion e r’ s d ir e c t app e al re c or d in thi s c a se . Se e State ex r e l. Wi lk e r s o n v . B o ma r , 3 7 6 S. W. 2 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 3 ( T e n n . 1 9 6 4 )

. We n o te th a t th e d ir e ct appe al rec ord conta ins an amende d prese ntment dated January 20, 1999, which chang ed “Count Thre e” of the orig ina l pr e se ntm e nt f ro m po sse ssi on wi th i nte nt t o s e ll o ne -h a lf or mor e g rams o f c oc a ine to po sse ssi on wi th i nte nt t o sel l one -h a lf or mor e g rams o f c oc a ine wi thi n o ne tho us a ndfe e t of a sc ho ol. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t. Finally , the petitioner c ontends t h at h i s convictions are void, arg uing that the Drug -Free Schoo l Zo n e Act only

applies during normal school hours. He asserts that his viol ation occur red a ft e r norm al school ho ur s. We n ote that th e pe tit ion e r f ull y a dd re sse d th is i ssu e on dir e c t app e a l. Se e Pe rry , s lip op . at 9 ( “ Th is c ou rt ha s r e je c te d thi s arg ume nt be fo re , a nd we re je c t it h e re a s w e ll. There is nothing in the l ang uag e of the statute that indicates that the L eg islature intended § 39- 17- 43 2 to ha ve the lim ite d a

pp lic a tio n th a t D e fe nd a nt s ug g e sts .” ). B e c a us e thi s cou rt ha s p re vio us ly determined this issue, it is without merit. Ba sed upon the fore g oing and the rec ord as a whole, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE