### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT NASHVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 8, 200 5
JAM ES R .W. RE YN OLD S v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 3544 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge

No. M2004- 02254-CCA -R3-HC - F iled March 31, 2005
The pe titioner, J ames R.W. Rey no l d s , p l ed gu iltyto two counts of ag g ravated ra pe and w as sentenc ed to conc urre nt thirty -five y ear sentenc es. Subsequently , the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habea s corpus, a lleg ing that Blake ly v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct . 2531 (2004), rende red the 1982 Sentencing Reform Ac t uncons ti tu ti o n al i ng e n e r al a n d unconstitutional as applied to him specifically . The ha beas c orpus court summarily denied the pe titio n fo r a wr i t of habe as corpus, a nd the petitioner a ppeals. Upon our

revie w of the rec ord and the parties’ briefs, w e af firm the judg ment of the ha

beas c orpus court. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt is Affi rm ed

. 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 a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.
J ames R.W. Rey nolds, Nashville, Tenne ssee, Pro se.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; El iz abe th T . Ry a n, Se nio r C ou ns e l; V ic tor S. J ohnson, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and Kathy Morante, Assistant D istrict Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION
I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
Th e fa c ts i n th e re c or d b e fo re us are sk e tc hy a t be st. Re gardl ess , w e ha ve g le a ne d s ome lim ite d f a c ts f ro m thi s c ou rt ’s op ini on re la tin g to the pe tit ion e r’ s p re vio us ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion s: I n April 1985, the petitioner

. . . was c harg ed by the Coffe e Cou nty Gr a ndJury

wi th two c ou nts of

a g g ra vate d r ape fo r s e xua lly pe ne tr a tin g his se ve n- y e ar- olddaug hte r andhis six- y e ar- oldso n in De c e mbe r 1 98 4. On Janu ary 23 , 1 98 6, he ple d g uil ty

in the Cir c uitSe e T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 9

- 2

- 6 0 3 (a)( 4 )( b ) ( 1 9 8 6 ). 1
-2- Court o f Coffe e County

to both counts of the indictment and wa s sentenc ed as a

Rang e I , stand ar d o ffe nder to c oncurr ent terms of thirty -five y ear s on eac h count, for an eff ective se ntence of thirty -five y ear s in the Depa

rtment of Corre ction.
J ames R.W . Rey nolds v. St ate, No. M2003- 00112-CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL 1293275, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Nashvill e, J une 8, 2004), perm. to appea l denied, (Tenn. 2004). The pe titioner did not file a dire ct appe al. Howe ver, he previously filed two petitions for writs of habea s corpus, both of which we re de nied. The de nials of the petitions were aff irmed by this court. I d.
Th e re a ft e r, the pe tit ion e r f ile d a thi rdpe titionfo r a

writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s, a lle g ing that [t ]he Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t of 1982, T.C.A. §§ 40-35-101 thru 40-35-504 w as unconstitutional at the t ime of petit ioner[’]s t rial and sentenc ing and was unconstitutional a s applied to the petitioner, in v iol a tio n o f pe tit ion e r’ s rig ht t o a jury tr ia l a s g ua

rante e d b y

Artic le 1, § 6 of the Tenne ssee Constit ution and the Six th Amendment to the United States Constit ution, therefor e depriving the trial court of the authority to sentenc e petiti oner bey ond the minimum prison t erm of tw e nty y e ars . The pe titioner claims that the minium sentence he could have rec eived was twenty y ear s; there fore ,

1 when the trial court imposed sente nces of thirty -five y ear s after

improperly

apply ing e nhance ment fa c tor s that were not f

ou ndby a jury or a dmi tte d b y

the pe tit ion e r, the tr ia l c ou rt a c te d in c on tr a ve nti on of B lake ly v. Was hin g ton , 54 2 U. S.

__ , 12 4 S. Ct. 25 31 (2 00 4) , rende ri ng his sentenc es illeg al.
Th e ha be a s c or pu s c ou rt de nie d the pe tit ion , fi nd ing that “ the Cir c uit Cou rt of Cof fe e Cou nty had jurisdiction to sentence the P etitioner. The Court is of the opinion that the Petit ioner’s se ntence was authorize d b y s t at u t e, and its application does not make the Petitioner’s se ntence void.” The p et i t i o n ern o w a p p ea l s t h i s ru l i n g. II. Ana lys is
I nitially , we note that the determination of whether to g rant habeas corpus re lief is a question of la w. S ee McL aney

v. B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . As such, we will review the trial court’s f indings de novo without a presumption of corre ctness. I d. Moreove r, it is the petitioner’s burden to de monstrate, by a pre pond er an ce o f t h e evidence, “ that the sentenc e is void or that the c on fi ne me nt i s il le g a l.” Wy a tt v . St a te , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

. Article I , § 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es an a ccuse d the rig ht to seek ha beas-3-

corpus r elief. See Tay lo r v. S ta te , 99 5 S. W.2 d 7 8, 83 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . H ow e ve r, “ [s]uc h r e lie f i s available only

when it appe ars f

rom the fa ce of

the jud gm en t o r t h e re cord of the judg ment or the rec ord of the proce eding s that a trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence a defe ndant or that a de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e of

imp ri so nme nt o r o the r r e str a int ha s e xpir e d. ” Wy a tt

, 24 S.W .3d at 322; see a lso Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 (2000). I n other words, habea s corpus relief may be soug ht only when the judg ment is void, not m ere ly vo idable. See T ay lor

, 99 5 S. W.2 d at 83 . “ A v oid judgme nt ‘is one in which the judg ment is fac ially invalid because the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judgm en t or bec ause the defe ndant’s sente nce ha s expi red.’ We have rec og niz ed that a se ntence imposed in direct contr avention of a statute, for e x ample, is void and illega l.” Stephenson v. Carlton , 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted).
Rece ntly , this court addre ssed the issue rais ed b y t h e petitioner in Ea rl David Cra wford v. State, No. M2004-02440-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 3 5 4 1 0 6 , at * 1 ( T e n n . Cr

im . App. at Na shville, Feb. 15, 2005). Like the instant ca se, the de fenda n t in Crawfor d was c onvicted in 1986 of a g g ravated rape , among other off

enses, a nd he was sentenc ed to life imprisonment. I d. Crawf ord then filed a petition for a writ of habea s corpus, a lleg ing violations of B lakely . This court dete rmined:

Th e De fe nd a nt’ s a

rg ume nt h a s n o me ri t. F ir st, the argume nt f a ils beca use eve n if there was a

violation of the

D e f endant’ s constitutional ri g ht at th e tim e of

c on vic tio n a nd se nte nc ing , s uc h v iol a tio n w ou ld rende r the judg ment voidable, an d n o t v oid, unless the fac e of the re c or d e sta

bli sh e s that th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t ha ve jurisd ic tio n to c on vic t or se nte nc e the De fe nd a nt. Se c on dly , the B lake ly ho ldi ng is not to be ap p l i ed retroa ctively and is thus inapplicable to the Def endant’ s case . I d. Additionally , in the pos t-conviction setti ng , this court has previously held t hat B lakely does not establish a new water shed rule, and that Blakely does not apply retroa ctively

to case s on collatera l appea l. See Donald B ranc h v. State, No. W2003-03042-CCA-R3-PC, 2004 W L 299 6 8 9 4 , at *10 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Dec. 21, 2004), application for perm. to appea l filed, (F eb. 23, 2005); see a lso Carl J ohnson v. State, No. W2003-02760-CC A- R 3 -P C , 2 0 05 WL 181699, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Jan. 25, 2005). As such, the pe titioner has fa iled to demonstrate that his c onvictions or sentenc es ar e void. “[W ]here the a lleg ations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the judg ment is void, a trial court may corr ectly dismiss the petition without a hearing.” McL aney , 59 S.W .3d at 93. There fore , the habe as cor pus court did not err

in summarily

denying the petition.-4- III. Conclusi on Finding no reve rsible er

ror, we aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE