### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 25, 200 6
DWAYNE E. ANDERSON v . STATE O F TENNESSE E,

RIC KY BELL, WAR DEN
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 3751 Steve Dozier , Judge

No. M2006- 01223-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Novem ber 13, 2006

The Petitioner, Dway ne E. Ande rson, appe als from the or der of the trial court summarily dismiss ing his petition seeking habea s corpus relief. The trial court dism issed the petit ion because it determined that the petit ion did not state valid g rounds for ha beas c orpus re lief. We aff irm the judg ment of the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.
Dwayne Ande rson, Pro Se.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; B e njamin A. B a ll, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J ohnson, District Attorney Gene ral; and Pame l a Anderson, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

The re cord on a

ppeal is spar se. Our r ecitation of the fac ts and proce dural hist ory is based on the alleg ations contained in the pe tition for ha beas corpus relief

. The petition a sserts that in 1988 the Petitioner was arr ested for g rand larc eny

. He was rele ased on bond. Whil e o n b o n d the Petitioner was arr ested for a g g ravated assault. The rea fter, still during 1988, the Petitioner pleade d gu i l t y to and was c onvicted of both off enses. He alleg es that he r ece ived conc urre nt three- y ear sentenc es. It is appare nt that these sentenc es have expired.

The Petitioner also a lleg es that in 1991 he wa s arr ested for ag g rav at ed as s au l t. He wa s rele ased on bond. Whil e on bond, the Petitioner was char g ed with be ing a felon in posse ssion of a-2-

handg un. He was also rele ased on bond for this cha rg e. The rea fter, in 1992, while still on bond for the other c harg es, the Petitioner alleg es that he was ag ain char g ed with ag g ravated assault. I n 1994, the Pe tit ion e r a lle g e s that he ple a de d g uil ty to andwa s c on vic te d o f the se thr e e c ha rg e s. He a sse rt s that he re ceive d concur

rent sente nces of

four y ear s for e ach of these convictions. I t is appar ent that these sente nces ha ve expired.

I n J uly of 1996, following a jury trial, the Petitioner was convicted of burg lary and thef t of property over the value of

one thousand dollars. For these convictions, the Petitioner was sente nced to twelv e y ears in the Depa rtment of Corre ction as a c are er of fende r. Appa

rently , the Petitioner
rema ins incarc erated under these sente nces.
On April 28, 2006, the Petitioner filed a petition f or habea s corpus r elief a lleg ing that all of the convictions desc rib ed h er ei n are void. He a lleg es that his 1988 convictions for la rce ny and ag g ravated assault ar e void bec ause the y wer e base d upon a plea ag reem ent providing that the sentenc es we re to be serve d concur rently

. He arg ues that beca use the ag g ravated assault off ense w as committed while he wa s out on bond for larc eny , the trial court was require d to impose c onsecutive sentenc es. See Te nn. R. Crim. P . 32(c) (3)( C). L ikewise, he arg ues that his 19 9 4 co n v ictions are void because they

wer e base d upon a plea

ag ree ment providing that all t hree sentenc es be se rved
c on c ur re ntl y . H e ma int a ins that be c a us e tw o of the c on vic tio ns we re fo r of fe ns e s c omm itt e d w hil e out on bond, all three sentenc es wer e require d to be serve d consec utively . I d. Finally , the Petitioner
arg ue s th a t be c a us e the se a lle g e dly vo id c on vic tio ns un de rl ie a nde sta bli sh his c la ssi fi c a tion a s a car eer offe nder, the sentenc es he is pre sently serving , twelve y ear s at six ty perc ent for bur g lary and theft, ar e also void.

I n deny ing the petition, the habea s corpus court fir st noted that the 1988 and 1994 c onvictions have e x pired a nd there fore the P et i t i o n er is no longe r imprisoned or r estraine d of his liberty for p u rp o s e s o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s r e li e f

. T h e h ab e a s c o rp u s c o u r t f u rth e r c o n c lu d e d th a t th e a ll e g a ti ons conce rning the prior c onvictions “would at most rende r his twelv e y ea r sentenc es voidable, not void.” The tria l court there fore denied the pe tition for habea s corpus re lief. It is from the order of the tr ia l c ou rt

de ny ing re lie f tha t th e Pe tit ion e r a pp e a ls.
Article 1, se ction 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es the rig ht to seek ha beas c orpus relief , and Te nnessee Code Annotated se ctions 29-21-101 to - 130 codify the applicable proce dures for se eking a writ. However , the g rounds upon which our law provide s relie f ar e v er ynarr ow. Ta y lor v. Sta te , 99 5 S.W. 2d 78 , 83 (T e nn

. 19 99 ). Ha be a s c or pu s re lie f is a va ila

ble in T e nn e sse e on ly when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt is render ed that (1) the convicting court was without jurisdiction or authorityto sentence a def endant; or ( 2) the de fenda nt’s sentenc e has e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). Thus, the g rounds upon which ha beas c orpus re lief will be g rante d are very narr ow. Sta te v. Ritc hie , 2 0 S. W.3 d 6 24 , 6 30 (T e nn . 2 00 0) . It is pe rm iss ibl e fo r a tr ia l c ou rt

to s umm ari ly dis mis s a pe tit ion fo r h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f, wi tho ut an ev ide nti ary he ari ng , if

the pe tit ion fa ils to demonstrate that the judgme nt is void. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004)

.-3-

We n ote that th is C ourt has pr e vio us ly a ddre sse d th e ide nti c a l is su e s o f l a w a rg ue d in thi s appea l and have found the issues to be without m er i t

. See Robert L . Moore v. Gle nn Turner , Warden, No. W2005-01995-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 473725 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Fe b. 28, 2006). We conc lude that both the re asoning and ana ly sis in Moore are persua sive.

Firs t, h ab e a s c o rp u s r e li e f may b e s o u g h t b y “ [a ]n y p e r s o n imp r is o n e d o r r e s tr ained of liberty .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 ( 2000). It is appare nt that the three -y ear sentenc es re ceive d in 1988 and the four -y ear sentenc es re ceive d in 1994 have e x pired. The ref ore, the Petitioner is no longe r “imprisoned” or “re strained of liberty ” by those convictions for pur poses of see king ha

beas corpus r elief. See Terry L ee Clifton v. State, No. W2004-01385-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL1363104, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., J ackson, J une 9, 2005), perm. to appeal de nied, (Te nn. 2005). As such, the Petitioner is not entitl ed to re lief re g arding his complaint that the prior convictions and sentence s are void. See Hickman, 153 S.W.3d at 23.

The Petitioner’s se cond complaint conc erns whe ther his classification as a care er of fende r, based upon the 1988 and 1994 convictions, rende rs his c urre nt twelve-y ear sentenc es for

burg lary and thef t illega l and thus void. I n habea s corpu s ac t i o n s , “an ‘ illega l sentence ’ equates to a ‘jurisdictional defe ct.’” McChristian v. State, 159 S.W .3d 608, 610 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (quoting McL aney

v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) ). Our supreme c ourt has explained that
o f f e n d e r c la s s if ic a ti o n a n d r e le a s e elig ibilit y ar e n o n

- ju r is d ic ti o n a l. M c Co n n e ll v

. St a te , 1 2 S. W. 3d 79 5, 79 8 (T e nn

. 20 00 ). Th e re fo re , th e Pe tit ion e r’ s se c on d is su e re latin g to the pr op ri e ty of his classification as a car eer offe nder would at most render his twelve-y ear

sentenc es voidable, not void. J ubal Carson v. Da vid Mill s, Warden, No. W2005-00745-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 16306, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, J an. 4, 2006). As such, t his issue is not proper ly the s ubject of a habe as corpus pe tition. See Tony Wil lis v. Tony Parker , Warden, No. W 2004-02063-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 1996637, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App., J ackson, A ug . 18, 2005), perm to appeal de nied, (Te nn. 2006).


### C on cl us ion Acc ording ly , based upon our revie w of the allegations contained in the petition for habe as corpus r elief, w e conc lude that the trial c ourt did not e rr by dismiss ing the petition. The ref ore, the judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed.

______________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE