1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

EDDIE WI LLI AMS, JR., P RO 

### S E 

### v. DAVID MI LLS, W ARDEN

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County No. 5807 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2004-00056-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled May 21, 2004

This matter is befor e the Court upon the State’s m otion to aff irm the j udg ment of t he trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The P etitioner appe als the trial court’s de nial of habe as cor pus relief . The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable gr ound for ha beas

c or pu s r e lie f. Accordi ngly , the Sta te ' s mo tio n is g ra nte d a nd the jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is aff irmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opi n i o n o f the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Eddie Will iams, J r., pro se

.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

I n 1 98 8, Pe tit ion e r w a s con vic te d of two c ou nts of arm e d rob be ry a nd wa s sen te nc e d, a s a rang e I I persistent off

ender , to two concur

rent life se ntence s. See State v. Eddie W illiams , No. 20, 1988 WL 138818, * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Dec. 28, 1988)
, perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. Apr. 3, 1989). Petitioner subsequently filed t wo s epar ate petitions seeking post-conviction re lief; both of which we re de nied. See Eddie W illiams, Jr., v . S tat e , No. C C A- 0 2 C 0 1-9501-CR-00016, 1995 WL 555047, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Sept. 20, 1995), perm. to appeal de nied, (Tenn. Jan. 29 , 1 99 6) ; Ed

die W ill iam s, J r. v . S tat e , No. 02C01-9202-CR-00041, 1993 W L 2 0 9 8 5 2 , *1 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p

. at J ac k s o n, J un. 16, 1993), perm. to app. denie d, (Tenn. N ov. 1, 1993)

. On2

Aug ust 29, 2003, Petit ioner soug ht habea s corpus re lief, stati ng that his “sentenc e has e x pired beca use [of the] unconstit utional sentence that relied upon c o n v ic ti o n s th e p e ti tione r’s [sic] has never been convicted of that was used during sentenc ing.

. . .” The trial court denied habea s corpus r elief; this Court affirmed the lowe r court by memorandu m opinion on J anuary 30, 2004. See Ed

die W i l l i a m s , J r

. v

. D a v i d

M i l ls
, No. W 20 03 -0 23 52 -C CA -R 3- HC , 2 00 4 WL 22 12 9, *1 (T e nn . Cr im. App. at Jackson, J an. 30, 2004).

On D e c e mb e r 1 1
, 2 0 0 3
, a s e c o n d ap p li c a ti o n f o r th e w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s w a s f il ed by Petitioner in the L auder dale County Circuit Court. As basis for the application, Petitioner aver s that the indictme nt should be dismis sed due to discr imination in t he sele ction of the g rand jury fore person in Shelby County . By

order enter ed Dec ember 12, 2003, the trial court dismiss ed the applica tion, finding that the applica tion failed to state a g round upon which the writ of habea s corpus c ould issue. The trial c ourt furthe r found that the a pplication could not be tr ea t ed as o n e for post-conviction

re lie f, a s su c h w ou ld b e ba rr e d b y the sta tut e of

lim ita tio ns

.

Article I , § 15 of the Tenne ssee Constit ution g uara ntees the r ight to see k habea s corpus re lief and Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21- 101 et seq. c od if ie s th e app lic able pr oc e du re s f or se e kin g a

wr it. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which our l aw p ro v i d es relief are very narr ow. Tay lor

v . S tat e , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). Habe as corpus relief is available in Tenne ssee onlywhen it appe ars upon the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt is render ed that (1) the co n v i cting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence a def

endant; or ( 2) defe ndant’s sente nce ha s expi red. Arc he r v . S tat e , 8 51 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 . R itc hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000)

. I t is permissible for a trial court to summarily dismiss a petition for habea s corpus relief, without the appointment of c ounsel and without an e videntiary hearing, if

there is noth i n g o n the fa ce of

the judg ment to indicate that the c onvictions addresse d there in are void. Pa ssa re lla v . S tat e , 891 S.W .2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. Up on ou r r e vie w o f the re c or d in thi s c a se, we c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y de te rm ine d th a t th e Pe tit ion e r' s c la ims are no t c og niza ble in a ha

be a s c or pu s pr oc e e din g . T he re is nothing in the rec ord to indicate that the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction to sentence Petitioner;

no r i s th e re a nythi ng to i nd ic a te that the Pe tit ion e r' s sen te nc e s hav e e xpir e d. Th us , no g ro un ds e xist entitling Petitioner to habe as cor pus relief . Petitioner’s cha lleng e to the sele ction pro cess f or the fore person of

the g rand jury can only be addre ssed in a petition f or post-conviction re lief. See Sta te v. Roy Laverne Morris, Jr., No

. W19 99 -0 16 28 -C CA -R 3- CO
, 19 99 WL 15 31 76 0, * 2 (T e nn . Cr im. App. at Jackson, Dec . 16, 1999), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. Jul. 17, 2000).

Se c tio n 4 0- 30 -1 05 (c ) ( 20 03 Re pl. ), Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d, ins truc ts t ri a l c ou rt s to trea t habea s petitions as post-conviction petitions "when the relief and proc edure authorized by [t he Post-Conviction P roce dure A ct] appear adequate and a

ppropriate ." Consider ing the3

application as one for post-c onviction relief, w e conc lude that such pe tition i s barr ed as a petition fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f a s it wa s f ile d o uts ide the app lic able sta tut e of lim ita tio ns

.

Acc ording ly , it is ORDERED that the St ate’ s motion i s GRANTED. The judgme nt of the trial court is AF FI RMED in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.



### ____________________________________ JOHN E VER ETT WILL IAM S, JUD GE