### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs S ep te m be r 28, 200 5 TOR RIS B ENS ON v. GL EN TUR NER , Ward en Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Loudon County

No. 6857 E. Eugene Eb len, Jud ge

No. E2005-00409-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Novem ber 7, 2005
The p e ti ti o n e r , T o rr is B e n s o n , w a s c o n v ic te din1 9 8 7 o f r o b b e ry a n da g g r a v a te da s s au lt

a nd sentenc ed to life in prison as a habitual c riminal. I n a pro se petition for writ of habea s corpus, he claimed his habitual c riminal sentenceis ill eg al and void beca use the prior

judgme nts on which the sentenc e wa s based we re unsigne d. The trial c ourt dismissed the petition, and this t imely appea l followed. F ollowing our

revie w, we a ffirm the dismissal. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
A L A N E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J ., joined.
J oe H. Walker , District Public De fende r, and Walter B. Johnson, I I , Assistant Publ ic Def ender , for the appe llant, Torris B enson. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral a nd Re po rt e r, a nd John H. B le ds oe , As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION

F AC TS
P roce dural Hi story
I n 19 87 , the pe tit ion e r wa s c on vic te d in L ou do n Cou nty of ro bb e ry a nda g g ravate d a ssa ult

. He wa s sentence d as a ha bitual criminal to life in prison for the robbe ry conviction and r ece ived a concur rent e ight- y ear

sentenc e for the agg ravated assault. The petiti oner’ s sentenceenhanc ement to h abitua l c ri min a l f

or thero bb e ry

c ha rg e wa s b a se d o n p ri or

c on vic tio ns he ha d fr om Kno x Coun ty in 1 97 3, 19 77 , and19 85

. Th is c ou rt a ff irme d the pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio ns a ndse nte nc e s. Se e State v. J ohn L ee B enson and Torris Be nson, No. 68, 1987 WL 19676 (Tenn. Crim. App. N ov. 12, 1987), pe rm . to app e a l de nie d (T e nn . Ma r. 7, 19 88 ). Sub se qu e ntl y , the pe tit ion e r fi le d a pe tit ionfo r p os t-T he pet i t i oner rai s ed f i ve i s s ues conc er ni ng t he 19 73 an d 19 77 conv i ct i ons , but none conc er ned t he f act t hat 1 the ju d g m e n ts w e re un sig n e d

.

S u b se q u e n t t o re c e ivin g the p e tit io n e r’s p e tit io n , t h e trial c o u rt a p p o inte d him leg a l co u n se l. 2
-2- c on vic tio n r e lie f atta c kin g , o n n um erou s grou nd s, theva lid ity of the19 73 a nd19 77 c on vic tio ns . 1 The trial c ourt denied post-conviction relief and this court, ag ain, af firmed. See Torris H. B enson v. State, No. 03C01-9212-CR-00432, 1993 WL 311871 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug . 17, 1993). In 2004, the petitioner, pro se, fi le d a pe tit ionfo r w ri t of

ha be a s cor pu s in L ou do n Coun ty arg uin g that hi s 2 ha bitua l c ri min a l se nte nc e wa s il le g a l a ndvo id [b]e c aus e theprior

jud g me nts of

c on vi cti on s use d a s p ro of of prior c on vic tio n to enhanc e subsequent conviction [] does not c ontain the trial judg es [sic] handwritten signature on the judg ments of conviction and they could not be used as proof of prior c on vic tio n f

or pu rp os e of

e nh a nc ing se nte nc e fo r s ub se qu e nt c on vic tio n infi rs t in s tan c e [. ]
The trial c ourt dismissed the petition, finding “that the petitioner has not proven that his judgment of convic tion is voi d, that his sentence is ill eg al or that his sentenc e has e x pired.”
AN AL YSI S
Ha be a s C o r pu s R e li e f
I n Hog an v . M i l l s , 168 S.W .3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005) , our supre me court expl ained the na rr ow g ro un ds wh ic h ju sti fy theg ranti ng of

ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f: The g rounds upon wh i ch habea s corpus re lief is available arenarr ow. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004). Apetitioner is entitled to habea s corpus r elief only

if the petition establishes that the chal l en g ed judg ment is void, rathe r than mer ely

voidable. I d.; T ay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. A judg ment is void "only when it appears on the f aceof the judg ment or the re cord of the procee dings upon which the judgme nt is rende red that a convicting court wa s wi t h o u tj u ri s d i ct i o n o r a u t h o ri t y t o s en t en ce a d ef

en d an t , o r t h ata d ef

en d an t 's sentenc e of imprisonment or other restraint has ex pired." State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W .3d 62 4, 63 0 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) (c itatio ns omi tte d) . Avo id o r i lle g a l sen te nc e is o ne wh os e imposit ion directly

contra venes a

statute. Stephenson v. Carlton, 2 8 S. W.3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) . A voidable c onviction or s en tence is valid on its face and require s e v i d e n c e b e yo n d t h e f

a c e o f t h e r e c o r d o r j u d g m e n t t o d e m o n s tr a t e i t s i n v a l i d i t y. Taylor, 995 S.W .2d at 83 (c itations omi tted). A trial c ourt may dismiss a habe as corpus pe tition wit hout a hearing if the petition fails to establish that the cha lleng ed judgme nt is void. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 ( 2000); Hickman, 153 S

. W.3d at 20.S e e , e.g ., M a rv in A n th o n y M a tthe w s v . S ta te , N o . W 2 0 0 3 -0 0 1 0 6 -C C A -R 3 -C O , 2 0 0 3 W L 2 3 1 0 0 8 1 2 , at *1 3 ( T enn . Cri m. Ap p. D ec. 31, 200 3); T orr ey C al dwel l v. S t at e, N o. M 20 02

- 02 43 6- C C A

- R 3- C O , 200 3 W L 21 87 79 24 , at (c o n tinu e d ...) -3- A p e tit ion e r s e e kin g ha

be a s c or pu s r e lie f mus t f

ile his pe tit ionwi th the “co urt or ju dg e mos t convenie nt in point of distance to the applicant, unless a sufficie nt r eason be g iven in the petition for n o t ap ply ing to suc h court or judg e.” T enn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-105 (2003) . Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107( a) pr ovides that habea s corpus petitions must be sig ned and ve rified by a ff idavit . T his statut e fu rthe r r e qu ir e s th e pe tit ionto s tate : (1) That the person in w hose behalf the writ is soug ht, is il leg ally restrained of lib e rty , andthepe rs on by wh om andpla c e wh e rere str a ine d, me nti on ing thename of s u c h p e r s o n , if

k n o w n , a n d , if

u n k n o w n , d e s c r ib in g th e p e r s o n w ith a s muc h pa rtic ula ri ty a s p ra c tic able ; (2) The c ause or

prete nse of suc h restraint accor ding to the be st information o f t he applicant, and if it be by virtue of any

leg al proc ess, a c opy

there of shall be a nn e xed , o r a

satis fa c tory

re a so n g ive n f

or its abs e nc e ; (3) That the leg ality

of the re straint has not alre ady been a djudge d upon a prior proc eeding of t he same char acte r, t o the best of t he applicant' s knowledg e and belief; and (4) That it is fi rs t ap p l ication for the writ, or, if a previous application has been m ad e, a copyof the pe tition and procee dings the reon sha ll be produce d, or satisfac tory

rea sons be g iven for the failure so to do.
Tenn. C o d e Ann. § 29- 21-107(b) (2003). Theproce dural re quirements for habea s corpus a

re “mandatory

and must be followed s cr upulously .” Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993). As such, a

petition for habe as cor

pus relief may be dismi s s ed for

failure to follow the proce dural provisions of the ha beas c orpus statutes. Hickman, 153 S.W.3d at 21.

A. Venue
We in itiall y a d d r e s s th e St a te ’ s ar g u me n t th a t th e trial c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e d is mi s s ed the peti t i o n er ’s petition becausehe filed it in the convic ting c ourt, L oudon County , and not the court most convenient to his loc ation in H arde man County , wher e he is pre sently incar cer ated, a s require d by Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 29-21-105. Although not addresse d in the appellate brief, the petition state d that the petitioner’s “suff icient rea son” for filing the petition in the convicting court wa s b e c aus e it “p os se sse [d] a ll of the re c or ds re le vant to [his] sen te nc e .” I n it s mo tio n to dis mis s the petition and in its appeal brief, t h e State cor rec tly points out t hat we have re peate dly held that thefa c t th e c on vic tin g c ou rt ha s r e c or ds c on c e rn ing a pe tit ion e r’ s ca se is not a su ff ic ie nt r e a so n to file a habea s corpus petition ther e. We c ontinue to a g ree with this and f ind a convicting court may 3(

. . . con t i n u ed) 3

* 3 ( T en n . Cr i m. A pp. Ju l y 9, 2003), per m. t o a ppea l de n i ed ( T en n . N ov . 24, 2003) ; St at e v . Al fon zo E. An der s on , N o. W 2000- 00737- CC A- R3- CO , 2002 W L 1558491, a t * 1 ( T en n . C ri m . A p p. J an . 9, 2002) ; Pau l B ar n et t v . St at e, N o. E1999- 0 1 5 8 3

- CC A- R3

- CD, 2 0 0 0 W L 7 8 2 0 4 8 , a t * 2 ( Te n n . Cr i m . Ap p . J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 ) ; Ea r l Ra i n e s v . St at e, N o. E 19 99

- 01 34 0- C C A

- R 3- P C , 200 0 W L 56 22 92 , at * 2 ( T enn . C r i m. A pp . M ay 9, 20 00 ) , perm. t o a pp eal deni ed (T enn. N ov . 6, 2000) ; J i mmy W ay n e W i l s on v . St at e, N o. 03C01- 9806- CR

- 00206, 1999 W L 420495, a t * 2 ( T en n . Cr i m. App. Ju n e 24, 1999) , per m. t o appe al den i ed ( T en n . N ov . 22, 1999) ; As h ad Ras h ad Abdul l ah Al i M u h amma d v

. St at e, N o. 0 1 C 0 1

- 9 7 0 7

- C C

- 0 0 3 0 0 , 1 9 9 7 W L 7 7 9 0 9 5 , at *1 (T en n. C rim. A p p . D ec . 1 8 , 1 9 9 7 ). B ut see S t ate v. D o na l d R ee Jo ne s, N o. M 2000- 00381- CC A- R3- CD , 2000 W L 1520012, a t * 2 ( T en n . Cr i m. App. O ct

. 13, 2000) ( h ol di n g t h at l oca t i on of reco rds s uf

f i ci ent reas o n when chal l enge i s t o void sent ence).
W e o b t ai ned t hi s l i st f rom t he p et i t i o ner’ s p et i t i o n. W e co m p i l ed t he sent enci ng i nfo rma t i o n f rom t he 4

s en t en ci n g mi n u t es a n d ou r pr i or c as e con ce r n i n g t h e pet i t i on er . B en s on , 1993 W L 311871, a t * * 1- 2.

I n h i s pet i t i on, t he pet i t i oner al s o cl ai med hi s s ent enc es wer e e nh anc ed by t wo 19 82 coun t s of ag gr ava t ed 5

a ssa u lt, c a se nu m b e r 1 2 2 9 7 . T h is issu e w a s re so lve d in o n e o f his p rio r a p p e a ls. S e e B e n so n , 1 9 8 7 W L 1 9 6 7 6 , at *4 (c o n tinu e d ...) -4- dismiss a habe as cor

pus petition if Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-105 is not followed. Ou r s up re me c ou rt

in H ic kman e xpla ine d th a t “ [a] h abe a s c or pu s c ou rt may pr op e rl y c ho os e to dismiss a petition for f

ailing to c omply

wi t h the statutory

proce dural re quirements; howeve r, dis mis sa l is not

re qu ir e d.

. . . [T ]he ha

be a s c or pu s c ou rt may c ho os e to a dju dic a te thepe tit ionon its merits.” 153 S.W.3d at 21 (empha sis added) ( footnote omitted); see a lso Michael W. Smi th v. State, No. W2004-00689-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 1968671, at *2 (Te nn. Cr i m . Ap p. Aug . 16, 2005); Doug las Hay den Kirkham, J r. v. State, No. M2004-02635- CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 1025775, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May

3, 2005) (holding that althoug h the petitioner filed his ha beas c orpus petition in the c on vic tin g c ou rt

a ndno t th e c ou rt

mos t c on ve nie nt t o h im “ thetria l c ou rt di d no t ba se its dismi s s al o n t he proc edura l deficie ncies but on the merits of the alleg ations, which the c ourt was e nti tle d to do ” ). I n th is c a se , th e tria l c ou rt de c ide d to hear th e petitio ne r’ s p e tit ionon its me ri ts, finding that beca

use “the petitioner’s now-c halleng ed conviction was imposed in this [ c]ourt, then this [ c]ourt is a proper v en u e. ” Al though the trial court c ould have dismissed the petition for improper ve nue, it did not abuse its discretion in ref using to do so. B. Unsign ed Judgme nts The pe titioner arg ues that the Knox County judgme nts that wer e used to enhanc e his robbery sentenc e to habitual criminal are f acia lly invalid and void beca

use t hey wer e not s igne d by a judg e. We i n i t i al l y note that, in his brief, the pe titioner states that the copie s of these judg ements “w ere inadvertently

not transmitted by

the trial court and will be supplem en t ed i n the re cord.” I n the appellate rec ord, we can only find ce rtified copie s of what a ppear s to be sentenc ing minutes of the Knox C ounty

Criminal Co u rt re fl ec ting the se ntence s in question. W e do not have copies of a nythi ng that pu rp orts t o b e jud g me nts fr om Kno x Coun ty . With thi s dis c re panc y in m ind , w e wi ll consider the petitioner’s a rg ument.
Th e pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th e fo llo wi ng prior fe lon y c on vic tio ns we re us e d to e nh a nc e his

4 sentenc e: 5(

. . . con t i n u ed) 5 ( hol di ng t h a t a l t h ou g h t h e h a bi t u a l c r i mi n a l c ou n t r e fe r r e d t o t h e a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t s a s t r i g g e r i n g of fe n s e s , “ t h e t r i al c o u rt p e rm itt e d the sta te to d e le te the im p ro p e r re fer e n c e to [th e m ] b e fo re the b ifurc a te d se n te n c ing he a rin g b e g a n . T h is rul i ng was ent i rel y pro p er, s i nce t he ref erence was s urplus age, and no p rejudi ce resul t ed t o ” t he d efend ant

. ).

-5- Number Sentence Offe nse Date of Sentence
6715 3 to 9 y ear s Second De g reeBur g lary Fe bruary 1, 1973 6716 3 to 9 y ear s Second De g reeBur g lary Fe bruary 1, 1973 6717 1 y ear Attempt to Com mit a Felony Fe bruary 1, 1973 6746 3 to 9 y ear s Second De g reeBur g lary Fe bruary 1, 1973 6747 3 y ear s Second De g reeBur g lary Fe bruary 1, 1973 7091 3 to 9 y ear s Second De g reeBur g lary Fe bruary 1, 1973 C2868 6 to 10 y ear s Third Deg reeBur g lary September 28, 1977 21045 6 y ear s Second De g reeBur g lary September 16, 1985 21045 6 y ear s Assault with I ntent to September 16, 1985 Commi t Robbery

of a Vi ct i mo v er6 5 y ears o f A ge 21045 6 y ear s Assault with I ntent to September 16, 1985 Commi t Robbery

of a Vi ct i mo v er6 5 y ears o f A ge T h e c o p y o f t h e F eb ru ar y

1 , 1 9 7 3 , s en t en ci n g m i n u t es co n cl u d ed wi t h t h e f o l l o wi n g: (S ) R I CH AR D R . F OR D RI CHARD R. FORD, JUDGE D IV IS IO N II CRI MINAL

COURT
T h e c o p y o f t h e S ep t em b er2 8 , 1 9 7 7 , s en t en ci n g m i n u t es co n cl u d ed wi t h t h e f o l l o wi n g: ( S ) G E O R G E P

. B A LIT S A R IS GEORGE P. BA L I TSARI S, J UDGE D IV IS IO N III CRI MINAL

COURT
T h e c o p y o f t h e S ep t em b er1 6 , 1 9 8 5 , s en t en ci n g m i n u t es co n cl u d ed wi t h t h e f o l l o wi n g: (S) RAY L . J ENKINS RAY L . J ENKINS, J UDGE D IV IS IO N II CRIMINA L

CO UR T-6-

None of these minutes bea

r a handwritten sig nature by the judge

. The pe titioner arg ues the lack of signature on these documents makes the sentenc es void and, there fore , none could be used to enhanc e his sentenc e to habitual criminal.
Te nn e sse e Cod e An no tate d s e c tio n 1 6- 1- 10 6( a ) p ro vid e s: The minutes of the c ourt for e ach day ' s work shall be sig ned by the judg e. The minute book shall provide a plac e for the judg e' s signature a fter the m i n u t e entries e a c h d a y ; ho we ve r, wh e rethe or de rs of thec ou rt areph oto c op ie d s o th a t a n a c c ur a te fac simil e of the entire or der and judge ' s signat u re appears, it shall be suffic ient for the judg e to s ign at the end of the minute book approving all the minutes in the book. Tenn. Code Ann. § 16- 1-106(a ) (1994)

. Although minutes a re r equire d to be sig ned by the judg e, we ha ve pre viouslyexplained that this requirement “is direc tory rathe r t han mandatory and . . . the failure t o s i g n the minutes does not invalidate a judg ment.” Jerry L . J ohns v. State, No. E1999- 00260-CCA-R3-CD, 200 0 W L 2 6 2 9 01, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App. Mar. 9, 2000), pe rm. to appea l denied (Tenn. Sept. 11 , 2 0 0 0 ) (c i t i ng DuB oise v. State, 200 Tenn. 93, 96, 290 S.W.2d 646, 647 (1956)) . As such, we conclude the unsigne d minutes do not inva lidate the judg ments that wereused to enhanc e the pe titioner’s sentenc e to habitual criminal. The pe titioner acknow ledg ed this contrary authority but t ri ed t o distinguish his matter by arg uin g that “ he is n ot atta c kin g thetrig g e ri ng off ens e per se, b ut the prior c on vic tio ns us e d to ill e g a lly e nh a nc e his c on vic tio n to the status of ha bitua l crimi na l.” I n o ur

vie w, thi s is no t a

va lid distinction. I f t he failure of a trial judge to sign a judgme nt does not rende r a de fendant’s conviction void, then a t ri al court’s failure to sign a judge ment that is later used to e nhancea def endant’ s sentenc e likewise is not void.
CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon the for eg oing a uthorities and re asoning , we a ffirm the tria l court’s dismissal of the ha beas c orpus petition.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE