### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

DA VID JOHNS ON HAR TSEL L v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for John son Coun ty No. 4469 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2004-02876-CC A-R3- HC - F iled May 6, 2005

The pe titioner, David J ohnson Hartsell, a ppeals the dismissal by

the J ohnson CountyCircuit Court of his petition for writ of habea s corpus. The state has m oved thi s court to aff irm the j udg ment of the trial co u rt pursuant to Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als Rule 20. On re view, this court

a ff ir ms the or de r o f d ism iss a l.

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 the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J
., and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., joined.

David Johnson Hartsell, Mountain Cit y , Tenne ssee, Pro Se

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Mark A. F ulks, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Joe C. Crumley , J r., District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

The pe titioner was convic ted i n M ay 2003 pursuant to g uiltypleas for violation of the imp lie d c on se nt l a w, thr e e c ou nts of fe lon y dr ivi ng un de r the inf lue nc e of a n in toxic a nt, tw o c ou nts of fa ilu re to a

pp e ar, po sse ssi on of

dr ug pa ra pherna lia , a ndpo sse ssi on of mari jua na . U po n th e se
c o n v i c t i o n s h e r e c e i v e d a n e f f e c t i v e f i v e

- ye ar s e n t e n c e

. N o d i r e c t ap p e a l w a s t a k e n

. S u b s e q u e n t l y, the petitioner soug ht post-conviction relief

. On appea l f rom the dismiss al of his pe tition, t his court aff irmed the judg ment of the trial c ourt. See Da vid J ohnson Hartse ll v. St ate, No. E 2003-03080- CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. May 28, 2004), app. de nied (Te nn. Oct. 4, 2004).

On Novembe r 1, 2004, the pe titioner sought ha beas c orpus re lief fr om his convictions in the Circuit Court for J ohnson County . The pe titioner challeng ed his conviction s b as ed on claims of judic ia l a n d p r o s e c u to r ia l mi s c o n d u c t a n d in e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta n c e o f tria l c o u n s e l, a ll o f w h ic h he

a lle g e d r e su lte d in hi s e nte ri ng un kn ow ing , in vo lun tary , a ndun int e lli g e ntl y e nte re d g uil ty

ple a s.-2-

More spe cifica lly , the petitioner a sserted tha t the trial judg e scr eame d and y elled at him throug hout the trial court proce eding s, showing obvious bias a nd prejudice ag ainst him. The pe titioner asserte d that the tr ia l jud g e fu rthe r vio la te d his du e pr oc e ss rig hts by a c c e pti ng his “ ill -[a dv ise d]” g uil ty ple a s, by ref using to pe rmit him later to w ithdraw the g uilty pleas, and by deny ing his post-c onviction relief petition without an evidentiary hearing. T he petitioner a lso asserted that trial counsel misled and

c oe rced th e pet ition e r i nto e nte ri ng g uil ty ple a s, in p art

by thr e a te nin g that th e pe tit ion e r w ou ld

certainly rec eive a much leng thier sentenc e if he proc eede d to trial. On Novembe r 12, 2004, the trial court dismissed the petition upon its finding that no cog nizable g round for relief was pre sented.

I n Tenne ssee, the writ of habeas corpus will issue “only when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judgme nt or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed that a c onvicting
court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence a def

endant, or that a def

endant' s sentence of imprisonment or other re straint has expired.” State v

. R i t ch ie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)). “A void judg ment is one in w hich the judgme nt is facially

invalid because the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judg ment or bec ause the defe ndant' s sentence has expired.” Tay lor v. State, 955 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. I n contra st, “[a] voidable convic tion or sentence is one which is fa cially valid and re quires the introduction of proof be y ond the fac e of the rec ord or judgme nt to establish its invalidi ty .” Ritchie, 20 S.W .3d at 630 (quoting Tay lor, 955 S.W .2d at 83). Fa ci al i n validity means that the “ fac t [depriving the c ourt of jurisdiction] m u s t ap p ear clea rly and indisputably

either on the fac e of the judgme nt or in the orig inal t ri al re cord be fore a writ of habea s corpus c an issue fr om a Tenne ssee court.” Ritchie, 20 S.W .3d at 633.

I n the pres en t case , the petitioner doe s not contend that his sentenc e has e x pired. F urther, the petitioner’s c laims, even if pr oven, would rende r the c halleng ed convic tions voidable rather than void. Unlike the fe dera l writ of habe as cor pus which re ache s as far as allowe d by the Constitut ion, the sc op e of

the wr it w ith in T e nn e sse e do es not pe rm it r e lie f f ro m c on vic tio ns that are me re ly voidable for

want o f d u e p ro ce s s of law. State v. Mc Knig ht, 51 S.W .3d 559, 564 (Tenn. 2001)

. The pe titioner has fa iled to meet his burden of demonstrating either tha t the judgme nt is void or that the sentenc e has expired. See State ex re l. Kuntz v. Bomar, 214 Te nn. 500, 504, 381 S.W .2d 290, 291-92 (1964)

. A petition se eking issuance of a w rit of habe as cor pus may be summarily

dismiss ed by a trial c ourt if it fails to indicate that the pe titioner' s conviction is void. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 ( 2000).

Ac c or din g ly , th e state ’s mot io n is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d in

acc ordanc e with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als.

_______ _ _______________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE