### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

DER RIC K SA WYER S v. KEV IN M YER S, WAR DEN
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wayne County No. 13593 Robert

L. Jones, Jud ge

No. M2004- 03040-CCA -R3-HC- F iled April 22, 2005

The De fenda nt, Derrick Sawy ers, a ppeals fro m the trial court’ s dismis sal of his petition seeking habea s corpus re lief. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this court aff irm the trial court’ s de nia l of re lie f p ur su a nt t o Ru le 20 , Rule s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls. Th e Sta te ’s mot ionis 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 Ci r c uit

Co ur 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.

Der rick Sawy ers, Clifton, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.
Paul G. Summers, At t orney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; David Edwa rd Coenen, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; and Mike B ottoms, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

The De fenda nt, Derrick Sawy ers, pl e a d e d g u il ty in 1 9 9 6 to second de g ree murder, posse ssion of more tha n .5 g rams of c ocaine with intent to sell, and possession of l ess t han .5 g rams of coca ine with intent to sell. S ee D erri ck Sawy ers v. State, No. 01C01-9806- CR-00254, 1999 W L 298313 (Tenn. Crim. App., Na shville , M ay 13, 1999). The D efe ndant re ceive d an ag ree d sentenc e of twenty -five y ear s for the murde r convic tion, a concur rent e ight- y ear

sentenc e for

one of the cocaine convictions and a

consec utive three -y ear

sentenc e for

the other c ocaine conviction.

He f iled his most recent ha

beas c orpus petition in September of 2004. In t h e petition, the Def endant r efe renc ed prior ha beas c orpus petitions, but did n o t fi l e copies of the petitions and proce eding s thereon a s require d by the h ab ea s corpus statute. See Tenn. Code A nn. § 29-21- 107(a) (4). The State filed a motion to dismis s the petition because the proc edura l r equire ments of-2-

the s tatu te h a d n o t b e e n me t. T h e tria l c o u r t g r a n te d th e St a te ’ s mo ti o n to d is mi ss. I t is from the order dismiss ing the petition that the Defe ndant appe als.

The State ha s moved this Court to affirm the judg ment o f the trial c ourt bec ause the Def endant failed t o comply

with the mandatory

require ments of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 29-21-107. Our

Supreme Court has r ece ntly con fi rm ed that the proc edura l require ments of our habea s corpus statutes a

re ma ndatory

and must be followed scrupulously

. See Hickma n v. State, 153 S.W . 3d 16, 21 (Tenn. 2004) . A habe as cor pus court may

properly choose to dismiss a petition for failing to comply with the s tatutory proce dural requireme nts. I d. I n response to the State’s Rule 20 Motion in t his Court, the Defe ndant filed a motion to withdraw his appe al, in which he c oncede s that the State’s motion has merit.
We ag ree that t h e t ri al court did not err by dismiss ing the petition for habe as cor pus relief wi tho ut a he ari ng . T he jud g me nt i n th is c a se wa s in a pr oc e e din g be fo re the tr ia l c ou rt wi tho ut a jury , the judg ment is not a determination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the fi nd ing of the tr ia l c ou rt

that th e pe tit ion sh ou ld b e dis mis se d. Ac c or din g ly , th e Sta te ’s mot ionis g rante d. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed in a ccor dance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Te nn e sse e Cou rt

of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE