### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Marc h 4, 200 8
DA VID D. CO X v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 6160 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2007-01591-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Novem ber 5, 2008

Petitioner, David Cox , appea ls the trial court’s summar y dismiss al of his petition for wr it of habea s c or pu s r e lie f i n w hic h h e a lle g e d th at hi s se nte nc e in c a se numbe r C -9 88 1 in B lou nt C ounty Cir c uit Court for fa cilitation of delivery of coc aine ha s expi red. A fter a thoroug h revi ew , we affirm the jud g me nt o f t

he ha be a s c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined. D. KEL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J ., not participating

. David Cox , Henning , Tenne ssee, Pro Se. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l a n d R e p o r t e r ; Da vid H. F ind le y , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; and Mike Duna

vant, District Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
I. Bac kgr ound On May 10, 2000, Petitioner entere d a plea of guilty in case number C-9881 in the B lount County Circuit Court to facilitation of delivery of Cocaine , a Class C felony , and wa s sentence d as a Rang e I , standard of

fende r, to six y ear s, al l o f wh i ch wa s suspended a nd Petitioner place d on pr ob a tio n. Th e tr ia l c ourt or de re d Pe tit ion e r t o s e rv e his se nte nc e c on se c uti ve ly to h is s e nte nc e s in case numbers C-6539 and C-6540 in the Blount County Circuit Court. Copies of t he judgments for these e arlier

offe nses ar e n o t included in the re cord. H oweve r, the Te nnessee Depa rtment of Correc tion’s T OM I S report re flec ts that Petit ioner wa s sentence d in 1993 in case numbe r C-6539 to eig ht y ear s for fe lonious possession of cocaine , a Class B felony , and in c ase no. C-6540 to thre e y ear s for fe lonious possession of less than 0.5 gr ams of coc aine.-2-

On J anuar

y 9, 2007, Petitioner’s probation in case number C-9881 wa s revoke d, and he w as or de re d to se rv e six y e ars in c on fi ne me nt. Pe tit ion e r w a s g ra nte d p re -t ri a l ja il c re dit

fo r 1 ,1 87 da

y s, or three y ear s and ninety -two day s. The tri al co u rt order ed Petitioner to serve his sentence c on c ur re ntly with h is p ro bate d e ig ht- y e ar s e nte nc e in c a se numbe r S 46 29 8 in Sul liv an Co un ty Cr imi na l Co ur

t. On J une 26, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition f or writ of ha

beas c orpus re lief cha lleng ing the De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n’ s c a lc ulatio ns of

the e xpir a tio n d a te fo r h is s e nte nc e in c a se numbe r C

9881. Petitioner argued that his sentenc e in this case ha d expired and thus habea s corpus re lief wa s appropr iate. Petitioner also ar g ued that the Depa rtment of Corre ction err ed in ca lculating his “total ma ximumse nte nc e ” a s fourt e e n y e ars be c a us e thi s f igur e inc lud e s th e e ig ht- y e ar s e nte nc e fo r c a se number C-6539 whic h Petitioner submitt ed had a lso ex pired. Petitioner also a ppear ed to ar g ue that the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in or de ri ngPe tit ion e r t o s e rv e his se nte nc e in c ase numbe r C -9 88 1 in confine ment beca

use the sente nce in c ase numbe r S46298, to which his sentence was to run concur rently , was be ing se rved on supe rvised probation.
The trial c ourt found that Petitioner’s a lleg ations conce rningthe ca lculation of cr edits for time served and t he release elig ibilit y dates for his sentence in case number C-9881 did not prese nt a cla im for which ha

beas c orpus re lief is available and summarily dismi ssed the habe as cor pus pe tit ion wi tho ut a

n e vid e nti ary

he ari ngand

wi tho ut t he a pp ointme nt o f c ouns e l.
II. Stand ard of Review The right to habeas c orpus re lief is available “on l y when ‘ it appear s upon the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proc eeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed’ that a convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence a def

endant, or that a defenda

nt's sentence of imprisonment or other re straint has expired.” Summers v. State, 212 S.W .3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)) . I n co ntrast to a post-convic tion petition, a habeas corpus petition is used to cha lleng e void and not mer ely voidable judg ments. I d. at 255-56. A voi dable judgment is one that is fac ially valid and re quires proof beyond the fa ce of the re cord or

judgme nt to establish its invalidity

. I d. at 256; Dy kes v. Compton, 978 S.W .2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998) . A void judgme nt “is one in which the ju d gm ent i s fac ially invalid beca

use the court lac ked jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judg ment.” Ta ylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn.999) ; Dy

kes, 978 S.W.2d at 529.
A p e t i t i o n e r

b e ar s th e b ur d e no f

p r o v i n g a

v o i d j u d g m e n t o r i l l e g a l c o n f i n e m e n tb y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn.2000) . A trial cour t may summarily

dismiss a petition for wr it of habea s corpus without the appointment of co u nsel and without an evidentiar

y hear ing if

ther e i s n o t h i n g on the fa ce of the judg ment to indicate that the convictions addre ssed t here in are void. See S ummers, 212 S.W.3d at 260; Hickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004)

.-3-

The de termination of whe ther ha beas c orpus re lief should be g rante d is a question of law. Summers, 212 S.W .3d at 255; Har t v. State, 21 S. W

. 3 d 9 0 1 , 903 (Tenn. 2000) . There fore , our revie w is de novo with no presumption of correc tness g iven t o the finding s and conc lusions of the lower court. Summers, 212 S.W .3d at 255; State v. L ivingston, 197 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tenn. 2006).
III . A nal ys is On appe al, Petitioner argues that the trial c ourt er re d i n summarily dismiss ing his ha

beas corpus pe tition without the appointment of counsel a nd an evide ntiary

hear ing. Petitioner c ontends that he is entitled to habea s corpus r elief be cause his sentence in case number C-9881 ha s expi red as a r esult of pre -trial jail cr edits, jail credits, and time ser ved. B eca

use this sentence has expired, Petitioner submits that he is furthe r beingillega lly restra ined as a

result of the Depar

tment of Correc tion’s miscalculation of his “total maxim um sentence ” which Petitioner c ontends includes an eig ht-y ear sentenc e that has a lso ex pired. We observe that Petiti oner has included in the re cord on a ppeal a n “ETOMI S” repor

t that was not shown to the trial court in an effort to demonstrate that his sentenc e in case number C-6539 ha s exp i re d . Howeve r, re g ardle ss of the status of this case , Petitioner was sente nced on January 16, 2007, in case number C-9981 followingthe re vocation of his probation. He was g rante d pre- trial jail cre dits of three year s, ninety -two day s, which includes the period of incar cer ation from Mar ch 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , un t i l J anu ar

y 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , l e av i n g a

b a l an c e t o s e r

v e o f tw o ye ar s , tw o hun dr e d an d s e v e n tythree day s. Petiti oner ha s thus not completed servinghis sentence in case number C-9881. Calculati o n s of time cre dits and matters re lating to se ntence reduc tion credits ar e interna l matters of the Depa

rtment of Correc tion whic h are not cog nizable in a habea s corpus proc eedingand mus t be a dd

re sse d thro ug h th e pr oc e dure s set fo rt h in the Un if or m A dmi nis tr a tiv e Pr oc e dure s A c t. Eddie E. Glenn v. State, No. E2007-00550-CCA-R3-HC, 2008 WL80175, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvil le, J an. 8, 2008), no perm. t o appea l filed (c iting T.C.A. § 4-5- 101 to 4-5-324; Carr oll v. Raney , 868 S.W

. 2 d

7 2 1 , 7 2 3 ( T e n n
. Cr im

. Ap p
. 1 9 9 3 ) )

. F urth e r , th e r e is n o c o n s ti tuti o n a l or inhere nt rig ht to be conditionally rele ased be fore the expiration of a prison sentence. State v. Sutton, 166 S.W .3d 686, 691 (Tenn. 2005) (citingGre enholtz v. I nmates of t h e Ne b

. Penal and Corr

. Complex , 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L

. Ed. 2d 668 (1979); Da niels v. Traughber, 984 S.W.2d 91 8, 92 4 (T e nn
. Ct. Ap p. 19 98 )) ; se e a lso T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 50 3( b) (s tatin g that “ [r]e le a se on pa ro le is a pr ivi le g e and

no t a ri g ht” )) . T e nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -5 01 , th e statut e addre ssing parole elig ibilit y dates, does not pr ovide a cer tainty of parole for se ntence s g reater than two y ear s. Rather, it simply “provide s no more than a mere hope that the benef it will be obtained.” Sutton, 166 S .W.3d at 691. (citing G ree nholtz , 442 U.S. at 11, 99 S.Ct . at 2100).
No r d oe s Pe tit ion e r’ s c ha lle ng e to t he mann e r o f s e rv ic e of

his se nte nc e in c a se numbe r C

98 81 a ff or d h im h a

be a s c or pu s re lie f. B arr

y Sothe rl and

v. State , N o. M2 00 6- 01 89 1- CCA -R 3- PC, 2007 WL1237786, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashvill e, April 27, 2007), perm. to appea l denied ( T e n n
. A u g
. 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 ) ; Way n e M ic h a e l F u ll e r v . St a te , N o
. E 2 0 0 4

- 0 1 6 4 2

- CC A

- R3

- H C, 2 0 0 5 WL 1661720, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, J uly 14, 2005), no per

m. to appeal f

iled. The trial-4-

court wa s within it s discretion to r evoke D efe ndant' s probation in case number C-9881 a nd had the statutory authority to order D efe ndant to se rve his e ntire sentenc e in c onfinement. See T.C.A. § 40- 35 -3 10 . F ur

the r, any c ha lle ng e s to the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r t hat Pe tit ion e r se rve his se nte nc e in confine ment would potentially rende r his judgme nt voidable, rather than void. See Summers, 212 S.W .3d at 255-56.
Be cause Petitioner has failed to show that the trial court was without jurisdiction t o sentenc e him in case number

C-9881 or that he is pre sently held o n an expired sentence in that case , we conclude that the trial court did not err in summar ily dismiss ing his ha

beas c orpus petition without the appointment of c ounsel or an evidentiary hear ing. A

ppointment of counsel to re prese nt an indige nt petitioner in a habe as corpus matter is not nece ssary if the petition for wr it of habea s corpus fails to raise a

cog nizable claim. L loy d Earl W illiams v. Tony Parker , Warden, No. W2005-00050- CCA-R3-CO, 2005 WL 2043540, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Aug . 24, 2005), per m. to appeal denied ( Tenn. Jan. 9, 2006).
CO NC LU SION
Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE