### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs O ct obe r 30, 200 7

MICH AEL L. McK IL LI P v. J IM MO RROW, W ARDEN, TEN NES SEE S TAT E P ENIT ENT IAR Y, and STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Bledsoe Coun ty No. 25-2007 Budd y D. P err y, Judge

No. E2007-01225-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Dece m ber 21, 2007

The pro se petitioner, Michae l L

. McKillip, a ppeals as of rig ht the Ble dsoe County Circuit Court’s summary dismiss al of his petition fo r a wr it of habea s corpus. The petitioner wa s convicted of ag g ravated sexual battery pursuant to hi s g uilty

plea in the Shelby

County Criminal Court and
rec eived a

sentenc e of f

ifteen y ear s as a Rang e I Ioffe nder to be serve d at one hundr ed per cent. He
a lle g e s th a t he is e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f b e c a

us e the tr ia l c ou

rt e rr on e ou sly

a llo we d him

to plead outside his rang e and beca use the 1989 Criminal SentencingReform Ac t violates the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Blake ly v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The trial c ourt summarily dismiss ed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. Following
our r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Ci r c uitCo ur t i s A ffirm e d

D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J ., joined.

Michae l L . McKillip, Pi keville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Robert E

. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; and Cameron L . Hy der, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral, attorney s for a

ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

The petitioner was orig inally indicted for sever al sexual offense s involving alleg ations of an ong oing sex ual relationship betwee n himself and his daug hter oc curr ing when the c hild was betwe en eleve n and thirtee n y ear s old. The petitioner e ntere d a guilty plea to one c ount of ag g ravated sexual battery wit h an ag ree d sentenc e of f ifteen y ear s as a Rang e I Ioffe nder, which was outside the petitioner’s qua lify ing rang e and above the statutory minimum of t welve y ear s. The petitioner f iled-2-

Mo tio n fo r Co rrect ion or Re du c tio n o f S e nte nc e wh ic h w a s d e nie d b y the tr ia l c ourt . H e a lso
unsucce ssfully

filed a pe tition for post-conviction relief . I n this petiti on for a

writ of habe as cor

pus the pe tit ion e r a sse rt e d a t the tr ia l c ourt le ve l that his se nte nc e is ill e g a l be c a us e the tr ia l c ourt

sh ou ld not have imposed a sentenc e outs ide hi s appropr iate rang e classification. The ha beas c orpus cour

t summarily

dismiss ed the pe tition for writ of habe as cor pu s based upon its finding that the petitioner’s c laim was not cog nizable in a habea s corpus proc eeding . On appe al he a sserts that the summary dismiss al was e rrone o u s and that the tria l court should have de clar ed him indige nt and
a pp oin te d c ouns e l. As an ad dit ion a l bas is of re lie f, he c la ims that his s e nte nc e is i lle g a l be c a us e it was impo s ed in contrave ntion to Blakely . The state c ounters that the tria l court cor rec tly denied habea s corpus re lief.

A N A LY S IS

Tenne ssee law

provides that “[a]ny person imprisoned or re strained of his liberty

under a ny prete nse whatsoever . . . ma y prosec u t e a wr i t o f h abea s corpus to inquire into the ca use of suc h imp ri so nme nt. ” Te nn . Code Ann. § 2 9- 21 -1 01 . H a be a s c or pu s r e lie f i s li mit e d a

nd a va ila ble on ly when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the rec ord of proce eding s below that a trial c ourt was without jurisdiction t o convict the pe titioner or that the petitioner’ s s en t en ce ha s expi red. A rche r v. State , 85 1 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 4 (T e nn

. 19 93 ). To pr e va il on a pe tit ion fo r a wr it of ha beas c or pu s, a petitioner must establish by a prepondera nce of the evidenc e that a judg ment is void or that a term of imprisonment has expired. See State e x rel. Kuntz v. Bomar , 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W .2d 29 0, 29 1- 92 (1 96 4) . I f a

pe tit ion fa ils to s tate a

c og niza ble c la im, it m ay

be dis mis se d s umm ari ly by the trial court without further inquiry

. See S tate ex rel. By rd v. Boma

r, 214 Tenn. 476, 483, 381 S.W .2d 280, 283 (1964); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109. We note that the de termination of whe ther to gr ant habe as corpus relief is a matter of

law; there fore , we will re view the tria l court’s findingde novo without a presumption of cor rec tness. McL aney

v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001)

. We ag ree with the state’s a ssertion that the petitioner c laim reg ardingoffe nder c lassification is not cog nizable in a habea s corpus proce eding when the offe nder c lassification wa s a bar g ainedelement of

the plea a g ree ment. State v. McConnell, 12 S.W .2d 795, 797-98 (Te nn. 2000). Reg ardingthe B lakely

alleg ation, we initially note that the petitioner is pr eclude d from cha ng ing or from ra ising a dditional alleg ations for the first time on a ppeal. State v. Adle r, 71 S.W.3d 299, 303 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). Fur thermore , the petitioner’s B lakely claim would re nder the judgme nt of conviction mere ly

voidable, not void, and ther efor e is not cognizable in a habea s corpus proce e d in g

. Se e B illy

Merle Me eks v. Ricky

J . Be ll, W arde n, 2007 WL 4116486, No. M2005-00626- CCA-R3-HC, at *12 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 13, 2007). As previously stated, the trial c ourt may summarily

dismiss a petition for a

writ of habeas c orpus without further inquiry when the pe tition fails to state a cog nizable c laim. There fore , it wa s unnece ssary for the trial court to de termine the petitioner’s indig ence . For the fore g oing rea sons, we affirm the trial court’ s summary dismiss al of the pe tit ion

fo r a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s.-3- CONCL USI ON Upon thoroug h revie w, we conclude that the t rial court corr ectly dismiss ed the pe tition for
a wr it of habea s corpus. The judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed.

___________________________________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE