### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE
GRE GOR Y S COT T SP OON ER v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Hancock Coun ty No. CR- 2490 Jam es E. Beckner, Judge

No. E2004-02160-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Jul y 7, 2005

The pe titioner, Greg ory

Scott Sp o o n er , appeals from the trial c ourt' s order dismiss ing his pe tition for writ of habea s corpus. The state has f iled a mot i o n reque sting that this court a ffirm the tria l court' s denial of r elief pur suant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. The petition fails to establish a cog nizable claim for habea s corpus re lief. Ac cording ly , the state' s motion is gr anted a nd the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f theCo ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J .J ., joined.
Gre g ory Scott Spooner, Mountain Cit y , Tenne ssee, Pro se.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Se th P . K e stn e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; C. Be rkely Be ll, J r., District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION On April 28, 1993, the petit ioner was convicted by a jury in the Hanc ock County

Criminal Court of six counts of ra pe and one count of e x hibiting material harmful t o a m i n o r. He was sentenc ed as a

multipl e ra

pist to an eff

ec t i v e sentence of

forty -eig ht y ear s incarc eration with the Tenne ssee Department of C orre ction. The petiti oner’ s direc t appea l of hi s convictions to this court was dismissed beca

use he ha d esca

ped fr om custody . See State v . Gre g ory Scott Spooner, No. 03C01-9402-CR-00046 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 3, 1994)(orde r). On Aug ust 2, 2004, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habea s corpus. He asserted that his sentence wa s i m p roperly enhanc ed and hewas sente nced a s a multiple offende r without the
re qu isi te nu mbe r o f p ri or c on victio ns , viol a tin g his du e pr oc e ss rig hts a ndre su lti ng in a vo id judgme nt. He soug ht immediate rele ase from custody or an ame nded sente ncing judgme nt. The trial
c ou rt dis mis se d th e pe tit ion , f

ind ing that “ no ne of

the a lle g a tio ns sh ow a ny

vio la tio n o f d ue pr oc e ss or unconstitutional custody of the pe titioner.”Se e G r eg or y Sc ot t Spoon er v. S t at e, N o. 03C01- 9608- CR

- 00283 ( T en n
. Cr i m. App. Au g
. 31, 1998) , a pp. 1 d e n ie d (T e n n . F e b . 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 )( a ff irm ing d e n ia l o f p o st-co n v ic tio n re lief).

-2- I n Te nn e sse e , “ [a]n y pe rs on imp ri so ne d or re str a ine d of his lib e rty , un de r a ny pret e ns e wh a tso e ve r, e xce pt [tho se he ld u nd e r f e de ra l auth ority ] , maypr os e c ute a writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and re straint.” Church v. State, 987 S.W. 2d 855, 857 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) ; T.C.A.. § 29-21-101. A writ of habeas corpus may be granted onl y when the pe tit ion e r h a s e sta

bli sh e d la c k o f j urisd ic tio n fo r the or de r o f c on fi ne me nt o r that he is o the rw ise entitled to immediate rele ase be cause of t h e ex p i ra t ion of his sentence . See Ussery v. Avery , 222 T en n
. 5 0 , 432 S.W .2d 656 (1968); State ex rel. Wade v. Norvell, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 447, 443 S.W. 2d83 9 ( 19 69 ). A p e tit io n seek in g i ssua nc e of a writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s may be su mma

ri ly dismisse d b y a tria l c o u r t if it f a il s to in d ic a te th a t th e p e ti ti o n e r ' s c o n v ic ti o n is v o id

. T

. C.A. § 29-21-109.
I n the pre sent ca se, we observe initiallythat t h e p etitioner has f ailed to comply

with the statutory require ments for pursuing state habe as cor pus relief . See T.C.A. §§ 29-21- 101 - 29-21- 130. Most significa ntly , the petitioner ha s not attached copies of the judg ments by which he is be ing
re s tra i n ed o r gi v e as at i s fa ct o ry re as o n fo r th ei r ab s en ce
. S ee T

. C

. A. § 2 9 -2 1 -1 0 7 (b )( 2 ). Al t h o u gh the pe titionwa s d ism iss ibl e on this ba sis a lon e , th e tria l c ou rt , w ith in h is d isc re tio n, no ne the le ss c on sid e re d th e pe tit ion on its me ri ts. Se e T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 9. Exa min ing thepe tit ion e r’ s c la ims , thi s c ou rt c on c lud e s th a t th e y

do no t me ri t r e lie f. Th e pe tit ion e r cla im s th at he wa s e rr on e ou sly classified a s a multipl e offe nder, that enhanc ement fac tors wer e improperly applied, and that his due proce ss rig hts were violated at sente ncing . These c laims, even if pr oven, would re nder the judgme nts voida b l e rathe r than void. Ther efor e, they are not cog nizable in a habea s corpus proce eding and will not support issuance of the writ. See, e.g ., Luttrell v. State, 644 S.W .2d 408, 409 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982). F urther, be cause the petitioner ha s previously soug ht post-conviction
re lie f a nd his pe tit ion wa s de nie d on its me ri ts, he ma y no t pr e se nt his c la ims in a se con d p os t- 1 conviction petition. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102( c). Thetrial court pr operly dismiss ed the pe tition. Upon due c onsideration of the pleading s, the rec ord, and the app l i cable law, the c ourt conclude s that the petitioner has not e stablished a cog nizable cl ai m fo r habe as cor pus relief

. Acc ording ly , the state’s motion is g rante d. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE