### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 5, 200 6

COR EY D. AN DER SON v. TO NY PA RKE R, WAR DEN

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County No. 6066 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2006-01710-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Fe bruary 8, 2007

The Appe llant, Corey

D. Ander son, ap p ea ls the L auder dale County Circuit Court’s summary dismiss al of his petition for wr it of habea s corpus. I n 1995, Ander son pled g uiltyto two counts of delivery of a c ontrolled substance and re ceive d concur rent e ight- y ear

suspended se ntence s. I n 1999, Ander son pled g uiltyto second deg ree murder, attempted especially ag g ravated robbery
, and fe lon in possession of a hand gu n

. As a re sult of these convic tions, he rec eived c oncurr ent sentenc es of thirty -five y ear s for second deg ree murder, thirteen y ear s for espec ially ag g ravated robbery , and two
y ear s for fe lon in possession of a handg un. Ander son was sente nced a s a Rang e I I offe nder f

or ea ch of the thre e imposed sentenc es, with the sentenc e for second deg ree murder to be serve d at 100% a s a violent offe nder. The sentences imposed in 1999 we re or dere d to be serve d consec utively to the 19 95 se nte nc e s. He is p re se ntl y inc arc e rate d in t he W est Ten ne sse e Sta te Pr iso n. On app e a l, Ander son asserts that the trial court err ed in summarily dismiss ing his pe tition because he contends that his 1999 guilty

pleas a nd resulting sentenc es we re i l l egal, “as we ll as void,” as they wer e imposed outside the appropriate sente nce r ang e. Additionally
, he ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed by failing to addre ss his claim that his 1995 sentenc es for delivery of controlled substanc es had e x pired. After revie w, we a ffirm the judg ment of the L auder dale County Circuit Court.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Corey D. Ander son, Pro Se , Henning , Tenne ssee.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., At torne y Ge ne ra l andRe po rt e r; L e sli e E. Pr ic e , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; for the A ppellee, State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

P roce dural Hi story-2-

I n Aug ust 1995, the Appellant pled g uilty in F ay ette County Circuit Court case number 4153 to two counts of delivering .5 g rams or more of a Sche dule I I co n t ro l l ed s u b s tance and wa s subsequently

sentenc ed to an e ffe ctive eig ht-y ear suspended se ntence . I n J an u ar y 1999, the Appellant pled g uilty in Fa y ette C ounty Circuit Court case number 4476 to second deg ree murder, attempted espe cially

ag g ravated robbe ry , and fe lon in pos s es s i o n o f a ha ndg un. The trial c ourt imp os e d th e fo llo wi ng Ra nge I I sente nc e s: ( 1) thi rt y -f ive y e ars fo r s e c on d d e g re e mur de r w ith service of 100%; (2) thirtee n y ear s for a ttempted espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry ; and (3) two y ear s for f elon in possession of a ha ndg un. The court further order ed that the three sentenc es be se rved

concur rently to eac h other for an eff

ective thirty -five y ear

sentenc e. Howe ver, the court orde red tha t the sentenc es be se rved consec utively to the eig ht-y ear suspended sentenc es in ca se number 4153, which, ac cording to the Appellant, we re r evoked a s a re sult of the subsequent convic tions.

On J une 16, 2006, the Appe llant filed a pro s e petition f or writ of habe as co rp u s i n the L auder dale C o u nty

Circuit Court challeng ing the validity of the F ay ette County

Circuit Court’s ju d gm en t s i n t he above two case s. As g rounds for r elief, the Appellant asse rted that: (1) the

se nte nc e s in c a se 44 76 are ill e g a l a ndvo id b e c a us e the y we re “ un kn ow ing ly a c c e pte d” a ndbe c a us e they “imposed a g reater sente nce tha n that allowed by statute under [the] 1989 Sentencing Act;” a nd (2) the se ntence s in case 4153 have “ expired due to [the] denial of [a] revocation hearing .” The trial

c o u r t s u mm ar il y

d is mi s s e d th e A p p e ll a n t’ s h ab e a s c o rp u s p e ti ti o n f in d in g th a t n o g r o u n d a ll e g ed would entitle the Appellant to re lief. This appe al followed.

Ana lys is

On appe al, the Appe llant asserts that the trial court err ed in summarily dismiss ing his petition for writ of habea s corpus a nd in not reviewing the merits of his exp i re d sentenc e issue. The rig ht to seek ha

beas c orpus re lief is gu ar antee d by Article I , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constituti on. Hickma n v. Sta te , 153 S.W .3d 16, 19 (Tenn. 2004) . Howeve r, the g rounds upon which ha beas
corpus r elief w ill be gr anted a re na rrow. Id . at 20 (c itations omi tted). Relief will be gr anted if the
p eti tion establishes that the cha lleng ed judg ment is void. Id

. A j u d g m e n t i s v o i d “ o n l y wh e n ‘ it

app e ars up on the fa c e of

the jud g me nt o r the re c or d o f the pr oc e e din g s u po n w hic h th e jud g me nt i s rende red’ that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a def endant . . . .” Arc he r v . S tat e , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) . “I f the co u rt re n d er i n g a judgment has jurisd ic tio n o f the pe rs on , th e su bje c t- ma tte r, a ndha s th e a uth or ity to m a ke the c ha lle ng e d ju dg me nt, the judg ment is voidable, not void; and the judgme nt may not be collaterally attacke d in a suit for habea s corpus re lief.” Pa ssa re lla v . S tat e , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

.

Th e pe tit ion e r i n a

ha be a s c or pu s p ro c e e din g ha s th e bu rd e n o f e sta bli sh ing e ith e r a

vo id jud g me nt o r a n il le g a l c on fi ne me nt b y a pr e po nd e ra nc e of the e vid e nc e

. I f the pe tit ion e r c arrie s th is burden, he is entitled to im mediate r elea se. Id . H ow e ve r, if the ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion fa ils to demonstrate tha t the judgme nt is void or that the conf inement is illega l, neither a ppointment of counsel nor a n evidentiary hearing is require d, and the trial court may proper ly dismiss the petition. Hickm an , 1 53 S.W. 3da t 20 ( c iti ng T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 9 ( 20 03 ); Dixon v. H olland , 70 S.W .3d 33, 36-3-

(Tenn. 2002) ). The de termination of whe ther ha beas c orpus re lief should be g rante d is a question of la w w hic h th is c ou rt

re vie ws de novo

. Ha rt v . S tat e , 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)

.
First, with reg ard to the c laim of an illeg al sentenc e, the Appe llant arg ues that “[t] he fa ct that the sentenc ing c ourt did not make petitioner awa re as to he was being sentenc e[d] outside his rang e, mak[es] the g uiltyplea illeg al as we ll as void.” Acc ording to the Appellant, “ [a] n illega l sentence

was e stablished the moment the petitioner wa s sentence d by the Court outside of his rang e, without
appropriate priors a s well as, the pr e-se ntencing collaboration between defe nse attorney and, State’s
prosec utor failure to disclose the illega l se ntence to the petitioner.” In dismiss ing the petition, the court found “that the [Appellant’s] sentenc e has not e x pired, the sentenc e wa s lawful, and that the Court had jurisdiction. No gro u n d s are alleg ed in the petition which would other wise entitle [the Appellant] to a hearing.”

O u r r e v i e w r e v e a l s t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t ’ s a s s e r t i o n s m u s tf a i l u p o n m u l t i p l e g r o u n d s

. In i t i a l l y, the Appellant a

ppear s to be arg uing that his sentences a re illeg al because his g uiltypleas we re inv ol u n t ar i l y e n t e r e d

. H o w e v e r , a c l a i m t h a t a g u i l t y p l e a w a s n o t v o l u n t ar i l y e n t e r e d
, e ve n if
proven, me rely

rende rs a judg ment voidable, not void. Archer , 851 S.W .2d at 164. Thus, habea s corpus r elief is not appr opriate, a s post-conviction relief is the p roce dural a venue f or attac king voidable judg ments. Hickm an , 153 S.W .3d at 20.

Moreove r, we are constraine d to note that the three 1999 judgme nts of conviction which a re challeng ed d o not refle ct upon their fa ce tha t the respe ctive sente nces a re illeg al. The le ng th of

s en t en ce s i m p o s ed fo r t h e t h re e co n v i ct i o n s i n ca s e n u m b er4 4 7 6 ar e w el l wi t h i n t h e a p p l i ca b l e r an ge f o r a Ra n g e I I o f

f ender

. See T.C.A . § 40 -3 5- 11 2( b) (2 00 3) ; se e als o S ha un Ho ov e r v . S tat e , No. W2005-01921-SC-R11-HC (Tenn., Jan. 23, 2 0 0 7 ). Thus, we are unable to conc lude that the Appellant is being held pursuant to an il leg al s entenc e as there is nothing which a ppear s on the fac e of the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s which i ndicates that the Appellant’ s sentence s are illega l or void.

Thoug h not entirely clea

r, t he Appellant’s arg ument appea rs t o rec og nize that the sentence s themselves ar e not illeg al; rathe r, his arg ument appea rs to be a challeng e to the fac t that he re ceive d Rang e I I sentenc es when he onlyqualified for Rang e I sentenc ing. H e ac knowledg es, as did the tria l

c ou rt , th a t a

de fe nd a nt a ndthe Sta te ma y ne g oti a te of

fe nd e r c la ssi fi c a tio ns , as wel l as r e le a se elig ibilit y , beca

use they “ar e non-jurisdictional and leg itimate barg aining tools in pl ea ne g otiations under the Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t of 1989.” Bland v. Dukes , 97 S.W .3d 133, 134 (Tenn. C ri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Mc Con ne ll v . S tat e , 1 2 S. W.3 d 7 95 , 7 98 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ); see also State v. Mahler , 735 S.W .2d 226, 228 (Tenn. 1987). Moreove r, as noted, this court has specif ically held that

“ a kn ow ing a nd vo lun tary g uil ty ple a wa ive s a ny

ir re g ula ri ty a s to of fe nd e r c la ssi fi c a tio n o r r e le a se elig ibilit y .” Bland , 97 S.W .3d at 135. Howe ver, the Appellant is corr ect in hi s assertion that the defe ndant, prior to ac cepting a neg otiated sentenc e of this type, must be informed that he is in fac t pleading outside the appropriate ra ng e in orde r for the plea to be knowing and voluntary

.-4-

As noted, the Appe llant now appea rs t o assert that he only

qualified a s a Rang e I

offe nder

an d t h at h e w as n o ti n fo rm ed t h at t h e s en t en ce s h e r ec ei v ed as p ar to f t h e p l eaagr ee m en twe re R an ge I I se nte nc e s. Ho we ve r, the Ap pe lla nt ha s fa ile d to inc lud e c op ie s of his g ui lt ypl ea agre e me nts , transcripts of his guilty

plea he aring s, and, if applica ble, any notice of intent t o s ee kenhanc ed punishment. I t is an appellant’s obligat i o n t o p re p are a re cord w hich will allow for mea ningf ul revie w on appe al. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). T hese doc uments and transc ripts are criti cal to our revie w of the issues pr esente d. We note that the Appellant r equeste d copies of the transcripts of the
g uil ty ple a he ari ng s in his tw o c a se s on J uly 12 , 200 5, by fi lin g a “ Mo tio n T o O bta in T ra ns c ri pt” in the Fay ette County

Circuit Court. The rec ord reflec ts, howeve r, t hat no order was ever e ntere d on the Appellant’ s motion, nor w as any further action take n by

the Appellant to obtain a r uling upon his moti on. I t is the Appellant who bea rs the burde n of providing us an ade quate r ecor d for r eview. B y his fa ilu re to i nc lud e the app ro pr ia te do c ume nts in t he reco rd, the Ap pe lla nt h a s f a ile d to establish that the conteste d sentenc es and sentenc e rang es which he rec eived we re not a g ree d upon and imposed pursua nt to the terms of the plea ag ree ments.

Mo re ov e r, the sc a nt r e c or d b efor e us es ta bli sh e s th a t th e Ap pe lla nt d id i n f a c t qu a lif y a s a Rang e I I offe nder. Tw o prior Class B f elony judgme nts of conviction, those in ca se 4153, for de liv e ry of a Sc he du le I I c on tr oll e d su bs ta nc e are inc lud e d in the re c or d. Th e fa c e of the jud g me nts establish that these c onvictions occurr ed prior to the A ppellant’s convic tions in case 4476. I n order to be classifie d as a Rang e I I , multipl e off ender , a def

endant must have :

(1) A minimum of two (2) but not more than four (4) prior felony

convictions within the conviction class, a highe r class, or within the next two (2) low er fe l ony classes, w here applicable

. . . .
T.C.A. § 40-35-106( a)( 1) (2003) . The Appe llant was convic ted o f: (1) se cond deg ree murder, a Cla ss A f e l o n y ; ( 2 ) a t t e m p t e d e s p e c i a l l y a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y , a C l a s s B f e l o n y ; a n d ( 3 ) fe lon in possession of a handgun, a C lass E felony

. Ba sed upon the a bove statute, the A ppellant did qualify as a Rang e I I

offe nder. Thus, his asse rted issue is without merit.

Th e Ap pe lla nt a lso arg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rred by no t r e vie wi ng the me ri ts o f h is alleg edly expired sentence s in case numbe r 4153. I n his origina l petition, the Appellant alleg ed that these sentenc es “ha[d] expired due to de nial of revoc ation hearing[,] thereby deny ing the petitioner his constituti onal rig ht to due proce ss of law.” I nitially , we note that the order dismiss ing the petition states that the sentenc es “ha[d] not expired.” Thus, it appear s that the court did conside r the issue and made a dete rmination. Moreove r, the Appellant has failed to inc lude any documentation wi thi n th e re c or d in supp ort of h is c la im. I nd e e d, the re is n o p ro of in the re c or d b e fo re us that hi s 1995 sentenc es we re, in fact, ever revoked. Additionally
, there is nothing before us to indicate that the Ap pe lla nt r e ma ins c on fi ne d u nd e r the re str a int of thes e sen ten ces. B e c a us e of his fa ilu re to include the a

ppropriate documentation in the record and failure to cite to any authority in his brief, revie w of the issue ha s been w aived. Te nn. R. App. P. 24(b); Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 10(b).-5- CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the L auder dale County Circuit Court’s summary dismiss al of the petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus is aff

irmed.

___________________________________

DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE