### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON

RA YM OND BELC HER v. S TEP HEN DO TSON , WA RD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forHardeman County No. 07-02-0283 JoeH. Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2008-00310-C CA-R 3-HC - Filed August 8, 2008

The pe titioner, Raymond Belcher, a ppeals the H arde man County Circu it Co u rt’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of ha b ea s co rp u s

. T h e S tate has f iled a motion reque sting that thi s court aff irm the lower c ourt’s denia l of relief pursua n t to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. Because the petitioner h as fa i l ed to establish that his conviction is void or his s entenc e illegal, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-take n. Acc ordingly, we a ffirm the lowe r court’s summary dismissal of the petition.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ff

ir me d Pur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f C our t o f C r im ina l A ppe als

A LA N E. G LE NN , J. , d e liv e re d th e op in io n of th e c ou rt , inwh ic h J .C. M C L I N and C AM I LLE R. M C M ULLEN , JJ., joined.

Raymond Belcher , Whiteville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter ; and J o h n H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

FA CT S

In May 2007, the pe titioner pled guilty in t he Coffe e County Circuit Court to ag g ra v ated assault in exchange for

a nine- year

sentenc e as a

multipl e off

ender

. On J anuary 2, 2008, he filed a petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus in the Har deman County Circuit Court, alleging that his sentence was illegal because it was not specific ally order ed to be served c onsecutively to the sente nce f or an of fe ns e fo r w hic h h e wa s o n p ro batio n o r p arole a t th e tim e he c omm itt e d th e a gg ra vate d a ssa ult

. On January 15, 2008, the habe as court summarily dism issed the petition without the appointment of c ou ns e l or a n e vid e nti ary he ari ng , c on c lud ing that the pe tit ion e r h a d n ot m a de a c og niz able c la im fo r h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f. On Fe br

ua ry 8, 20 08 , th e pe tit ion e r f ile d a tim e ly n oti c e of

app e a l to thi s court.-2- AN AL YSI S

The pe titioner asserts that “ by virtue of not specifying on the Judgment Orde r,” the trial court ill e ga lly or de re d th a t hi s n ine -y e ar s e nte nc e fo r a gg ra vate d a ssa ult be se rv e d c on c ur

re ntl y to his three -yea r sentenc e for

sale of c ocaine , an off

ense f or which he was “ out on probation/parole” at the time of his commission of the instant offense. The State a sserts that there is nothing on t he fa ce of the petitioner’s judgment t o s h o w an illegal sente nce, pointing out that the judgment form for the petitioner’s Oc tober 2005 sale of cocaine refle cts that he wa s order ed to serve sixty days of a thre eyear sen t en ce be fore being re lease d on probation, not parole . Citi ng Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Tenn. 2005) , the State furthe r ar gues that even if the petitioner wa s on parole suc h that the

ma nd a tory c on se c uti ve sen tenci ng statut e app lie s, the re is n oth ing on the fa c e of the jud gme nt t o show that the trial court illegally ordere d concur rent sentencing, and thus, the petitioner ha s failed to establish a ground for

habea s corpus re lief. We agre e with the State.

The de terminati o n o f wh ether to grant habe as cor pus relief is a question of law. See Hi c kman v . St a te , 1 53 S.W .3 d 1 6, 19 (T e nn . 2 00 4)

. Th e Ten nes se e Con sti tut ion gu arante e s a convicted c riminal defe ndant the rig h t t o s eek habea s corpus re lief. See Te nn. Const. art. I, § 15. Howeve r, the grounds upon which habea s corpus re lief will be gra nted ar e very narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. A petit ion for habe as cor pus relief may only be granted wh e n th e jud gme nt is sh ow n to be vo id, rathe r tha n me re ly v oid able . I d. A j ud gme nt i s v oidon ly when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judgment or the r ecor d o f t h e p ro ce ed i ngs upon which the judgment is render ed that the c onvicting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority t o sentenc e a defe ndant or that a de fenda nt’s sentenc e has e xpired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). On the other hand, a voidable judgment or sentence is one which is fac ially valid and which

re qu ir e s e vid e nc e be yo ndthe fa c e of the jud gme nt or the re c or d of the pr oc e e din gs to e sta bli sh its invalidity. Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83.

A petitioner be ars the bur den of e stabl i s h i n g a void judgment or illegal conf inement by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Wyatt v. St ate, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 ( Tenn. 2000). Furthe rmore, it is permissibl e for

a court to summarily dismiss a habe as cor pus petition, without the appointment of counsel and without a n evidentiary hearing, if there is nothing on the fac e of the rec o rd or judgment to indicate t hat t he convictions or sentences addressed therein are void. Passare lla v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

.

In thi s c a se , th e pe tit ion e r h a s n ot m e t hi s b ur de n o f e sta bli sh ing that hi s se nte nc e is i lle ga l. As the State noted, the judgment form for his sale of cocaine offense, entered on October 31, 2005, ref lects a thre e-ye ar se ntence as a Range I off ender with the petitioner to serve sixty d ay s i n the Depa rtment of Corre ction prior to being rele ased on probation. Furthermore
, our supreme court ha s conclude d that a petitioner i s not entitled to habea s corpus relief on the gr ound that his judgment fails to e xp lici tl y pro vid e fo r c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing be c a us e wh e n c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing is mandated, “ the new se ntence s run conse cutively to the prior sentence even if the j udgment is silent in this regard.” Hogan, 168 S.W.3d at 756.

CO NC LU SION-3-

When an opinion would have no pre cede ntial value, t h e C ourt of Criminal Appea ls may

a ff ir m th e jud gme nt o r a c tio n o f the tr ia l cour t by mem orand um o pin ionwh e n th e jud gme nt i s
re nd e re d o r the a c tio n ta

ke n in a pr oc e e din g w ith ou t a

jury a ndsu c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a determination of guilt, and the evidenc e does not pr eponder ate a gainst the finding of the trial judge. See Te nn. Ct. Crim . App. R. 20. We c onclude that this ca se sat i s fi es the criteria of Rule 20. Ac c or ding ly
, it is order e d th a t th e Sta te ’s mot ionis g rante d. Th e jud gme nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is aff irmed in ac corda nce w ith Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als.

___________________________________ ALAN E. G LENN, JUD GE