### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 9, 200 4

LUT HER HA GGA RD v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 3431 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge

No. M2003- 02554-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Jun e 9, 2004

Th e pe tit ion e r, Luth e r Ha g g ard , fi le d a pe tit ion fo r the wr it of ha be a s c or pu s in the Da vid so n Co un ty Criminal Court. I n the petition he alleg es that var ious Bra dley County , T en n es see, c onvictions he
re c e ive d p ur su a nt t o g uil ty ple a s e nte re d in 19 97 are ill e g a l a nd vo id. The Da vid so n Co un ty Cr imi na l Co ur t su mma

ri ly dis mis se d th e pe tit ion . We a ff ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OE G. R I L EY and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Luther Ha g g ard, N ashville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , At tor ne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Vi c to r S. Jo h n s o n , D is tr ic t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; a n d K a th y

M o r a n te , A s s is ta n t D is tric t A ttorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

BACK GR OUND

I n Fe bruary

of 1997 the pe t i t i o n er , Luther Ha g g ard, e ntere d g uiltypleas in the B radle y Cou nty , T e nn e sse e ,Cr imi na l Co ur t to nu me ro us c ha rg e s of bu rg lary , a g g ra va te d bu rg lary a nd the ft

. Th e jud g me nt f

or m w he re in o ne of

the g uil ty ple a s w a s a c c e pte d p ro vid e s th a t th e pe tit ion e r c ou ld apply for a community

corr ections sentenc e af

ter ser vice of

one y ear incar cer ation.

After entry of t he guilty pleas in Fe bruary , but before judgme nt was ente red on those ple as in April 1997, the petitioner pled g uiltyto ag g rava ted assault. On November 25, 1997, he applied to the trial court f

or a pla ceme nt in community corr ections, howe ver tha t application was de nied.-2-

On September

25, 2003, in the Davids o n CountyCriminal Court, the petitioner filed a pe tit ion fo r the wr it of

ha be a s c or pu s. I n th e pe tit ion he a lle g e d th a t be c a us e his a g g ra va te d a ssa ult conviction made him inelig i b l e for community corr ections, his convictions and sente nces on the g uiltypleas in F ebrua

ry 1997 are illega l and void.

On Octobe r 1, 2003, the ha beas corpus court summarily denied the pe tition hol ding tha t the Br adley Countyconvictions wer e not void. This appea l followed.

AN AL YSI S The g rounds upon which ha beas c orp u s re l i ef is warra nted ar e nar row. Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000). The wr it will i ssue only when it appe ars upon the f ace of t he judgment or the record of the proceeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed that a c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defe ndant or that the sentenc e has expired. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)

. A habe as cor

pus petition may

only be used to c halleng e j u dg ments that are void and not
me re ly vo ida ble . I d. ; T a y lor

v. Sta te , 995 S.W. 2d 78 , 8 3 ( Te nn . 1 99 9) . A vo id j ud g me nt “ is o ne in which the judgme nt is fac ially invalid be cause the court lacked jur isdiction or authority to rende r the judgme nt or bec ause the defe ndant’s sente nce ha s expi red.” I d. The Te nnessee Supreme Court has
rec og nized that a sentenc e imposed in direc t contrave ntion of a sentenc ing sta tute, i.e. , the leng th or
manner of ser vice, f

or example, is void and illega l. State v. Burkha rt, 566 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978).

A t

ri a l c ou rt is not re qu ir e d, a s a matt e r of la w, to g ra nt the wr it an d co nd uc t an inq uiry int o the alleg ations contained in the pe tition, and if the petition fails to state a cog niza b l e claim, the petition may be sum marily dismiss ed by the t rial court. See P assar ella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-109.
A petitioner ha s the burden of establishing by

a pre pondera nce of

the eviden ce that the judgme nt he attac ks is void or that his term of imprisonment h as ex p i red. St ate e x rel. Kuntz v. B o m a r , 2 1 4 T e n n

. 5 0 0 , 5 0 4 , 3 8 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 9 0 , 2 9 1 ( 1 9 6 4 )

. If a p e t i t i o n e r f a i l s t o e s t a b l i s h b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that his c onviction is void or his t erm of imprisonment has e x pired, he is not entitled to imm ediate r elea se. Passare lla, 891 S.W .2d at 627-28.
The pet i t i o n er ’s sentenc e is not illega l and the trial c ourt proper ly dismiss ed the pe tition. Simpl y having a conviction for ag g rava ted assault did not exempt the defenda nt from participation in communitycorr ections. See State v. M i ch ael Walls, No. M2002-01796-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1 9 3 0 7 1 ( T e n n

. Cr im

. A p p

. , Ja n

. 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o a p p

. to d a te ) ( n o ti n g th a t d e f e n dant, who had ag g rava ted assault convic tion, not ineligible for c ommunity corr ections.) Moreove r, as noted by the habea s corpus court in deny ing the petition, the petitioner was not ac tually sentenc ed or g uara nteed admission to communit y

corr ecti o ns; instead, the judg ment only provided that he could apply for such af ter one y ear . The trial c ourt proper ly dismiss ed the pe tition and the judgment should be aff irmed.-3-

T h e p e t i t i o n e r

a l s o ar g u e s o n ap p e a l t h a th i s g u i l t y p l e a s w e r e n o tk n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a r y, alleg ing tha t these plea s were predic ated on be ing a llo we d t o en t er communitycorr ections af ter a y ear . Howeve r, eve n assuming the truth of s uch allega tions, they do not rende r the judg ments void; claims reg arding the voluntariness of a g uiltyplea must be broug ht in a petition for post-conviction relief . Howeve r, sin ce t h e p et itioner’s judg ments were final in 1997, the time for f iling such a pe tit ion ha s e xpir e d. Se e Te nn . Co de An n. § 40- 30 -1 02 (2 00 3) (p ro vid ing a on e y e a r p e ri od of tim e in which to file such pe titions .)

CO NC LU SION

I n li g ht o f the fo re g oin g , the jud g me nt of the Da vid so n Coun ty Cr imi na l Co ur t su mma ri ly dismiss ing the petition for the wr it of habea s corpus is AF FI RMED.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE