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

JOHN R . B ENS ON v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE, KEV IN M YER S, WAR DEN

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wayne County No. 13672 Stella L. Hargrove, Judge

No. M2005- 01417-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Septem ber 16, 2005

This matter is befor e the Court upon the State’s m otion to aff irm the j udg ment of t he trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petitioner ha s a pp e a le d th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r s umm ari ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ionfo r the writ o f h abe a s c or pu s. I n that petition, the petitioner alleg es t hat t he trial court erre d by failing to appoint counsel and that the trial court erre d by

char g ing the jury

with rec kless endang erme nt as a lesse r-include d offe nse of ag g ravated assault. Upon a revie w of the rec ord in this case we are persua ded that the trial court wa s corr ect in summarily dismiss ing the habea s corpus petition and that this c ase me ets the criteria for aff irmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. Acc ording ly , the State’s motion is g rante d and 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 Tr ial Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.
J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
J ohn Robert B enson, Pro Se, Clifton, Tennessee

. Paul G. Sum me rs , Attorne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L

. B e lds oe , As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION The pe titioner was convic ted of two (2) counts of attempted first deg ree murder and t hree (3) c ou nts of re c kle ss en da ng e rm e nt by a B e df or d Coun ty Cir c uit Cou rt

. As a re su lt o f the c on vic tio ns , the petitioner wa s sentence d to an ef fec tive sentenc e of thirty (30) y ear s. On direc t a ppeal, this Court a ff ir me d b oththe c on vic tio ns a nd the se nte nc e . Se e State v. John R. B e ns on , N o. 01 C01 -9 80 6- CC00239, 2000 WL

19535 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J an. 13, 2000), pe rm. app. de nied, (Te nn. Oct. 16, 2000). Subsequently , the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction re lief, alleg ing that-2-

he re c e ive d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l. Th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt de nie d th e pe tit ionfo r p os tconviction re lief, and this Court aff irmed the denial of the petition on appea l. See J ohn R. Benson v. State, No. M2001-02510-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 31777741 (Tenn. Crim. App., at N a s hville, Dec. 12, 2002), perm. app. denied, ( Tenn. Apr . 28, 2003). The petitioner then filed a pro se petition for ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f, a lle g ing that th e tria l c ou rt imp ro pe rl y

ins truc te d the ju ry on re c kle ss endang erme nt as a lesse r-include d offe nse of a g g ravated assault and that the trial court err ed by not appointing c ounsel to repr esent the pe titioner in the habea s cor p u s p roceeding s. The trial c ourt de nie d th e pe tit ionfo r h abe a s c or pu s r e lie f andthepe tit ion e r f ile d a tim e ly no tic e of

app e a l w iththi s Court.
A writ of ha

beas c orpus is available only when it appear s on the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord that the c onvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the de fendant or that the def endant is still im prisoned despite the expiration of his se ntence

. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993); Potts v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . Howeve r, if af ter a revie w of the ha beas pe titioner’s filings the trial court de termines that the pe titioner would not be entitled to r e lie f, the n th e pe tit ion ma y be su mma

ri ly dis mis se d. Te nn . Co de An n. § 2 9- 21 -1 09 ; State e x re l. B yrdv. B oma

r, 38 1 S. W.2 d 2 80 (T e nn . 1 96 4) . F urthe r, a tria l c ou rt

ma y su mma ri ly dis mis s a petition for writ of habeas corpus without the appointm ent of a lawy er and without an evidentiary hearing if there is nothing on the fa ce of the judg ment to indicate that the c onviction s addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), supe rce ded by statute as st ated in State v. Steven S

. Newma n, No. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998). A petit i o n er has the burde n of establishing by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e that the judgme nt he attac ks is void or that his term of impri s o n m en t h as expired. State ex rel. Kuntz v. B oma r, 38 1 S. W.2 d 2 90 , 291 (T e nn . 196 4)

. I f the pe tit ion e r fails to e sta bli sh that hi s c on vic tio n is void or his term of im prisonment has ex pired, he is not entitled to imm ediate r elea se. Passare lla, 891 S.W .2d at 627-28.
Th e pe tit ion e r f

ir st a lleg es th at the tria l c ou rt imp ro pe rl y

ins truc te d th e jury

on re c kle ss endang erme nt as a lesse r-include d offe nse of a g g ravated assault. Ne ither er roneous ev i d en t iary ru lin g s n or

de fe c tiv e jury

ins truc tio ns a ff

e c t th e juri sdic tio n o r a

uth ority of thetr ia l c ou rt

to pronounce ju d g me n t. Se e St a te v . H e n d e r s o n , 6 4 0 S. W. 2 d 5 6 , 5 7 ( T e n n . Crim

. A p p . 1 982) (dete rmining that a habe as cor pus proce eding is not the pr oper a ction in which “to re view or c orre ct err ors of law or fa ct committed by the trial court in t h e ex erc ise of its jurisdiction”). Further, the petitioner’ s t rial occ urre d befor e the Te nnessee Supreme Court dete rmined in State v. Moore, 77 S.W .3d 132 (Tenn. 2002), that felony rec kless endang erme nt was not a lesse r-include d offe nse of ag g ravated assault whe n the ag g ravated assault is cha rg ed as ha ving be en committed byfea r ofIn S t ate v. H atf i eld , 1 3 0 S .W .3d 4 0 (T en n. 2 0 0 4 ), t he S up rem e C o ur t d e te r m i ne d t ha t f elo ny rec kless 1

en dan g er men t i s a l es s er - i n cl u ded of fen s e of a g g r avat ed as s au l t w h en t h e as s au l t i s c ommi t t ed by i n t en t i on al l y or k n o w ing ly ca u sin g b o d ily inj u ry to a n o the r b y the us e o f a d e a d ly we a p o n . -3- b o d il y in ju r y . T h u s , th e ju d g me n t a g a in s t th e p e ti ti o n e r is n o t v o idn o r

h a s h is s e n te n c e e xpired. 1 Consequently , no g rounds exist which would entitle the pe titioner to habea s corpus re lief. The pe titioner also alleg es that the trial c ourt erred by ref using to appoint counsel for the petitioner during the habea s corpus proce eding s. Whil e there is no fede ral or state constit utional rig ht to appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus proce eding , the t rial court has a dutyto appoint counsel if ne cessa

ry . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-14- 204. Howeve r, as n o t ed above, if the petitione r’ s judgme nts are f acia lly valid and not void, the trial court may properly dismiss the petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus without appointing c ounsel and without holding an evidentiary hearing. I n t h e prese nt case , the trial court’s actions in ref using to a ppoint counsel wer e justified beca use the pe titioner did not alleg e any fac ts that justi fied ha

beas c orpus re lief.
Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls p ro vid e s in te r a lia : The Court, with the conc urre nce of all judge s participating in the case , when an opinion would have no prec edential value, m ay aff irm the j udg ment or ac tion of the trial court by

memorandum opinion rathe r than by formal opinion, when: The judg ment is rende red or the action taken in a proce eding befor e the tr ia l ju dg e wi tho ut a

jury , a ndsu c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a det erm in ati on of gui lt , an d t he ev id ence d oes no t p repondera tea g ains t the finding of the trial judg e. . . . We determine that this ca se meets the criteria of the above- quoted rule and there fore we g rant the State’s motion filed under Rule 20 and we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE