### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 20, 200 6 DA RR YL FOR D v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wayne County No. 13755 Robert

Hollow ay, Judge No. M2005- 01854-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Jul y 31, 2006 T h e Ap p el l an t , Da rr y l Fo rd , p ro ce ed i n g pro s e , appea ls the Way ne County Circuit Court’s summary dis mis sa l of

his pe tit ion fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s. B e c a us e the pe tit ion fails to ra ise a c og niza ble claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Dar ry l Ford, Pro Se , Clifton, Tennessee .
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r andPr e sto n Sh ipp , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the A ppellee, State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION-2- P roce dural Hi story

Th e Ap pe lla nt i s c ur

re ntl y se rv ing a n e ff

e c tiv e tw e nty -f

ive y e ar se nte nc e ste mmi ng fr om h is g uiltypleas to ag g ravated rape and attempted ag g ravated rape . On May 10, 2005, the Appellant f iled a pro s e p et i t i o n for writ of habea s corpus re lief. As g rounds for the issuance of the writ, the Appellant alleg ed that his g uiltypleas we re not knowing ly and voluntarily en t er ed . On J une 16, 2005, the t rial court summarily dismiss ed the petition. A timelynotice of a ppeal wa s filed on J une 29, 2005.
Ana lys is The g rounds upon which a writ of habe as cor pus may be issued ar e very

narr ow. McLaney
v . B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001). A writ of habe as cor pus is available only

when it appe ars fr om the fa c e of

the jud g me nt o r r e c or d th a t e ith e r the c on vic tin g c ou rt wa s wi tho ut j urisd ic tio n to convict or se ntence the petitioner, or the pet i t ioner' s sentence has expired. Arc he r v . S tat e , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) . I n other wor ds, habea s corpus re lief may only be soug ht when the judgme nt is void, not mere ly voidable. T

ay l o r v . S tat e , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . The burden i s o n t h e p et itioner to establish that the judg ment is void or that the sentenc e has e x pired. State ex re l. Kuntz v. Bomar , 381 S.W .2d 290, 291-92 (Te nn. 1964).

I nitially , we would observe that the Appellant’ s petition is woefully inadequate with reg ard to statutory

form and ne cessa

ry fac ts which must be asserted in seeking habea s corpus re lief. The-3-

Appellant neg lects to attach a copy of the c ause of

the alleg ed re straint, i.e., the plea ag ree ment or a tra nscript of the g uiltyplea he aring , and he f ails to state whether

the l ega l i t y o f h i s restra int has been pr eviously

adjudicate d. T.C.A. § 29-21-107 ( b)(2) , (3) (2003). I n addition, the petit ion is not ve ri fi e d by a ff

ida vit , a s re qu ir e d by Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d se c tio n 29 -2 1- 10 7( a ). Ou r s up re me court ha s confirme d that the proc edura l require ments are mandatory and must be followed scrupulously . Hic kman v . S tat e , 153 S.W .3d 16, 21 (Tenn. 2004) . A habe as cor pus court may proper ly choose to dismiss a petition for fa i l i ng to comply with the statutory

proce dural require ments; however , dismiss al is not require d. Id . On appe al, the Appe llant p re s en t s the following issue: “B eca use the Trial Court did not e ns ur e that th e pe tit ion e r u nd e rs too d th e ri g hts he wa s wa ivi ng , b e c a us e the c ou rt didno t pr op e rl y a c c e pt the pe tit ion e r’ s p le a , r e nd e rs the Ple a a ndthe re su lti ng c on vic tio n v oid .” Ev e n if true , th is a lle g a tio n is no t a

pr op e r c la im f

or ha be a s c or pu s r eli ef a s it

wo uldre nd e r the jud g me nts me re ly
v oidable, not void. Se e Lut tre ll v . S tat e , 6 44 S.W. 2d40 8, 40 9 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 82 ); s e e a lso Do ug las H

a y d e n K i r k ha m v . S tat e , No. M2004-02635-CCA-R3-HC (T enn. Crim. App. at Na shville, M a y 3 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Lut tre ll , 644 S.W .2d at 409 ) ; Tor rey Cal dwe ll v . S tat e , N o . M 2 0 0 2
- 0 2 4 3 6- CCA-R3-CO ( T en n . C ri m. App. at Nashville, July9, 2003). More over, be cause the petition was fi le d tw o a nda

ha lf y e ars aft e r the jud g me nts be c a me fi na l, the pe tit ion c a nn ot b e tr e a te d a s a petition for po s t -c o nviction relief. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102( a) ( 2003). Ac cording ly , we c onclude that habea s corpus re lief is not available.
CO NC LU SION-4-

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the Way ne County Circuit Court’ s dismiss al of the Appe llant’s habea s corpus pe tition i s aff irmed.

___________________________________

DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE