It is d iffic u lt to d e c ip h e r th e p e tit io n e r’ s b rie f a n d p e tit io n b e c a u se h e is a p ro se li tig a n t. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Brie fs S ep te mb er 12, 200 7 DEM AR CU S SM ITH v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Direc t Appeal fromthe Circ uit Court forLaud erdale County

No. 6119 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2007-00540-C CA-R3-HC - Filed August 18, 2008
The pe titioner, Demar cus Smith, pro se , appeals the summary dismiss al of his “ petition f or writ of habea s corpus to cor

rec t illegal sentence .” Hecontends his senten ce i s i l l egal be causea Range I, standard of

fende r cannot be require d to se rve one hundred perc ent befor e rele ase e ligibil ity. After revie w, we c onclude the judgment is fa cially valid and the summary dismiss al is aff irmed. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Af firme d J O H N E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W ELL ES and A LA N E. G LE NN , JJ., joined. Demar cus Smith, Henning, Tennessee , Pro Se. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr ., Attorne y G e ne ral andR ep o r t er ; D av i d H

. F i n d l e y, As sis tant A tto rn e y G e ne ral; and D. Micha el Dunavant, District Attorney Ge neral, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION The judgment under

attack r eveals the petitioner, at agenineteen, ple d guilty to s econd degre e murde r (Class A fe lony) and re ceive d a sente nce of s ev en t ee n year s and six months in t he Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection. Thejudgment de signates the petitioner as a violent offende r and re quires one hundr ed per cent se rviceo f h i s s en t en ce befor e he is e ligible for re lease . The petitioner conte nds he is a Range I, standar d offe nder and, there fore , cannot be require d to serve one hundred pe rce nt of his sentence

. 1 The pe titioner unsucce ssfully pe titioned f or post-conviction re lief. De ma rc us Sh e rif f Sm ith v . S tat e , N o. W 20 01 -0 13 53 -C CA -R 3- PC, 2 00 2 T e nn . Cri m. Ap p. LE XI S 18 9, *1 7 ( Te nn . Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2002, at Jackso n ). On May 2, 1999, the pe titioner shot the victim and pointed the murder wea

pon at a second victim. On July 20, 1999, the petitioner pled guilty t o s ec o n d d eg ree murder and aggravated a ssault.-2- An a lys is Under Tenne ssee’ s sentencing system, a petitioner’s prior convictions may requireservice of more time and extend the perc entage of time se rved befor e rele ase eligibilit y can be o b t ai n ed. T.C.A. § 40-35-114( 1). Howe ver, therange classification of one pleading or found gui lty of second de gr e e mur de r o nly re late s to themin imu m amou nt o f timeto b e se rv e d, no t the pe rc e nta geof tim e to be serve d befor e reac hing eligibilit y for relea se. The perce ntage of servicerequire d befor e one is e lig ibl e fo r r e le a se ona c ha rg e of second de gr e e mur de r i s o nehu ndre d p e rc e nt, a s p ro vid e d in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-501(b)( i)(1).

“ An y p e rs onimp ri so ne d o r r e str a ine d o f l ibe rty, un de r an y pre te ns e wh a tso e ve r, e xc e pt i n case s specifie d in § 29-21-102, may prosec ute a writ of habe as cor pus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and re straint.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 29-21- 101 (2000). Tennesseecourts have long he ld that the writ of habea s corpus may be grante d only w hen the petitioner ha s established a la c k o f j urisd ic tio n f

or theor de r o f c on fi ne me nt o r is oth e rw ise e nti tle d to i mme diate re le a se be c aus e of the e xpiration of his sentenc e. State v. Galloway , 45 Tenn. (5 Cold.) 326, 336-37 (1868). Relief is available only whe n it appear s o n the fa ce of the judgment or the re cord that the trial court wa s without jurisdiction t o convict or se ntencethe petitioner or that the sentenc e of imprisonm ent has otherwise e xpired. Po tts v . S tat e , 833 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). The purpose of a statehabea s petition is t o contest a void, not mere ly a voidable, judgment. Su mm e rs v . S tat e , 212 S.W.3d 251, 261 (Tenn. 2007)

. The judgment under

attack is fac i al l y valid and cor rec t, given the petitioner’s c onviction. The pe titioner’s allegations do not allege a voi d judgment; therefor e, the ha beas c orpus court did not e rr in d ism iss ing his c la im. Conclusion Based on the fore going and the rec ord as a whole, w e af firm the summary dismissal of the petition.

___________________________________ JOHN EVE RETT WILL IAMS, JUDGE