1



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

AT JAC KSON

ALL EN OLIVE R v. DAVID MILLS , WA RD EN
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 6019 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2007-00518-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Augu st 30, 2007

The Petitioner, Allen Oliver , appea ls the lower c ourt' s denial of his pe tition for ha beas c orpus re lief. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Cou rt af fi rm t h e trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rul e s o f t

he Cour t of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Th e Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to a sse rt

a g ro un d th at w ou ld e nti tle him

to h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s d ism iss a l.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e ntof t he Tr ial Co ur t Affir m e d P ur sua ntto Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined. Allen Oliver, pr o se. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Michael Moore , Solicitor Genera l; Rachel E. Wil lis, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION On J uly 2, 2001, the Petitioner enter ed guilty pleas to eight offense s including one count of attempted first degree murder, one count of espec ially

ag g ravated burg lar

y, two counts of ag g ravated assault, one c ount of ag g ravated kidnapping , one count of assault, one c ount of stalking, a nd one count of harassment. See A llen Oliver v . State. , No. W2005-00677-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 5, 2006). The tr ial court imposed an e ffe ctive sente nce of twenty -three year s. Id. No direc t appea l was take n. Howeve r, t he P etitioner eve ntually filed a pe tition for post-conviction2

relief , alleg ing that his guilty pleas wer e not know ingly and voluntarily enter ed and that trial counsel was inef fec tive. The trial c ourt denied post-c onviction relief, a nd this Court affirmed. Id.
On Dec ember 8 , 2 0 0 5, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for habe as cor pus relief in the L auder dale County

Circuit Court. As gr ounds for relief, the Petitioner alleg ed that his judg ment for attempt to commit first d egr ee mur der w as void as it is not a valid criminal offe nse in Tenne ssee. The Petitioner also a sserted that the sentenc e imposed for his ag g ravated assault convic tion was illega l beca

use it was orde red to be serve d with one hundred perc ent rele ase elig ibilit y . On J anuar y 3, 20 06 , th e tr ia l c ou

rt g ra nte d h a be a s c or pu s re lie f as to the Pe tit ion e r’ s c la im that he wa s il le g a lly sentenc ed on his conviction for ag g ravated assault. The tria l court re manded the matter to the Shelby County Criminal Court for the entry of a c orre cted judgment. On J anuar y 31, 2006, the Petitioner filed a “ Motion for Reconsider ation,” in light of the trial court’s f ailure to a ddress the Petitioner’ s claim that attempted first degree murder was not a criminal of fe ns e in T e nn e sse e . O n F e br ua ry 21 , 20 07 , the tr ia l c ourt de nie d ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f o n th e c la im that attempted first de g ree murder is not a criminal offe nse in T ennesse e. In denying r elief, the court no te d th at th e Pe tit ion e r ha d fa ile d to atta c h the ind ic tme nt of the c ha lle ng e d att e mpt to c omm it f ir st de g re e mur de r c onvic tio n. Th e c ourt fu rt he r not e d that, a lth ou g h th e re is n o o ff e ns e of atte mpt to commit first deg ree felony murder, there is an of

fense for attempted first degree preme ditated mur de r. Th e c ourt

de te rm ine d th at th e Peti tione r f a ile d to me e t hi s b ur de n to e sta bli shhis e nti tle me nt t o h a

be a s c or pu s r e lie f. Th e Pe tit ion e r t ime ly fi le d a no tic e of a pp e a l do c ume nt. The State of Tenne ssee has filed a motion to aff irm the judg ment of the lowe r cour t pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appeals. Contemporane ously , the Petitioner ha s f ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ngthe a

pp ointme nt o f c ouns e l. There is no feder al or state c onstitut ionalright to the a ppointment of counsel in habe as cor pus proce eding s, howeve r, a tria l court has the statutory duty to appoint counsel, “if ne cessa ry .” See J oh n C. Tomli ns on v . S

tate , No. M2001-02152-CCA-R3-CO (T enn. Crim. App. at Na shville, J une 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Coleman v. Thompson , 5 01 U. S. 7 22 , 7 55 , 1 11 S

. Ct. 25 46 (1 99 1) ; Sta tee xre l. Ha ll v . M e ad ows , 215 Tenn. 668, 389 S.W .2d 256, 260 (1965); T.C.A. § 40-14-204) ). Appointment of c ouns e l is no t “ ne c e ssa

ry” me re ly

be c a us e a pe tit io n is fi le d, rathe r a pp ointme nt o f c ouns e l is “nec essar y” whe re the p et i t i o n al leg es fa cts that would justify relief and the pe titioner is deemed indige nt. See Mc

Lan e yv . B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 94 n.3 (Tenn. 2001) (citingTenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13, § 1( d) ); J oh n C. Tom lin so n v . S

tate , No. M2001-02152-CCA-R3-CO (c itations omi tted). The de termination of whe ther to grant ha beas c orpus re lief is a question of law

. McLaney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) , overruled in part by, Sum mers v. State, 212 S.W .3d 251 (Tenn. 2007). The T en n es s ee Constitution gua rante es a c onvicted criminal defenda nt the right to seek habea s corpus re lief. See Tenn. Cons t. art. I , § 15. Howeve r, the grounds upon which ha beas c orpus relief will be g rante d are very

narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A petition for ha beas c orpus re lief may

only be grante d when the j udg ment is shown to be void, rather than mere ly voidable. Id. A judg ment is void only when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judgment or the1

I t appear s t hat t he conv i ct i on res ul t ed f r om t he “ [ P ] et i t i oner ’ s repeat ed bru t al at t emp t s t o ki l l hi s est r ang ed wi f e. ” See A llen O live r v . S ta te , N o. W 20 05

- 00 67 7- C C A

- R 3- P C

. T he t r ans cr i pt of t he gu i l t y pl ea procee di ng i ncl uded as an exhi b i t i n t he P et i t i o ner’ s p o st

- co nvi ct i o n ap p eal reveal s t hat t he P et i t i o ner hi d i n t he at t i c arm ed wi t h a kni f e where he w a ited fo r h is e stra n g e d w ife, w h o w a s the v ic tim o f h is e v e n tua l atta c k

. See ge ner al l y St at e ex r el

. Wi l l i am s on v
. Bom ar , 3 7 6 S .W .2 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 3 (T e n n . 1 9 6 4 ) (c o u rt m a y tak e ju d ic ia l no tice o f i ts o w n re c o rd s) ; Bobby Jam es M os l ey v
. Wayne B r an do n, W

arden , N o. M 2006- 02398- CC A- R3- H C ( T en n . Cr i m. App. , at N as h v i l l e, J u n . 20, 2007) ( j u di ci al n ot i ce of cas es i nv ol vi ng t he s ame p ar t y i s p er mi s s i bl e es peci al l y when t he r el eva nce of t he pri or l i t i gat i on i s ex pres s l y made an i s s ue i n t he cas e o n app eal )

. W hi l e nei t her t he r ecor d bef ore t hi s Co ur t nor t he r ecor d f r om t he po s t

- convi ct i on appeal i n cl u de t h e ch al l en g ed i n di ct men t , t h e ev i den ce c on t ai n ed i n t h e g u i l t y pl ea t r an s cr i pt w ou l d s u ppor t a c on v i ct i on f or c rim ina l atte m p t t o c o m m it first d e g re e p re m e d itate d m u rd e r.

3 rec ord of the proce eding s upon which the judgment is render ed that the c onvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction or authority to se ntence a defe ndant or that a defe ndant' s sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 85 1 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 4 (T e nn . 19 93 ). On the oth e r h and , a

vo ida ble jud g me nt o r s e nte nc e is one which is fa cially

valid and which r equire s evid en ce b ey ond the fa ce of the judg ment or the rec ord of the pr ocee dings to e stablish its invalidity

. Tay lor , 995 S.W .2d at 83.
A p e t i t i o n e r b e ar s th e b ur d e n o f e s t a b l i s h 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. W yatt v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000) . In the pre sent case , the Petitioner, although attaching a copy of t he judgment of conviction, failed to include the challeng ed indictment in the re cord. See T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2)

. T h i s o mission m akes me anin g fu l r e vie w o f t

his c la im impo ssi ble

. Th e jud g me nt fo rm re fl e c ts a co nv ic tio n for the of fe ns e of attempt to commit first degree murder. Whil e State v. Kimbrough nullified the o ffe nse of 1 criminal attempt to commit first degree felony , s e e 9 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d 8 88 (Tenn. 1996) , the offe nse of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder (preme ditated) re mains a valid off ense in Te nnessee . The Petitioner’s se ntence has not expired and the trial court was with jur isdiction to enter the judgme nt ag ainst him. For these rea sons, the lower c ourt’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s re quest for habea s corpu s re l i ef

was prope r as to the judgment for c riminal attempt to commit first degr ee murder. When an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, the C o u rt of Criminal Appea ls may a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l court

by me mor and

um o pin ion

wh e n th e jud g me nt i s re nd e re d o r t

he a c tio n ta

ke n in a pr oc e e din gwi tho ut a jur y and su c h ju dgme nt o r a c tio n is no t a deter mination of guilt, and theevidenc e does not preponderate ag ainst the findingof the trial judg e. SeeTenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 20. W e conc lud e t h at th i s ca s e satisfies the c riteria of Rule 20. Acc ording ly , it is ordered that the State' s motion i s g rante d. The Petitioner’s motion for app oi n tm e n to f

c o un s e l i s d e n i e d

. T h e j u d g m e n to f th e tr i a l c o urti s a f

f i r m e d i na c c o r d an c e w ith Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE4