### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

DEX TERFR AN K JOHN SON v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 247583 Stephen M. Bevil, Jud ge

No. E2004-01260-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Septem ber 2, 2004

Th e pe tit ion e r, De xter

F rank John so n, app e a ls the dis mis sa l of his pe tit ionfo r writ of

ha be a s c or pu s. Th e state ha s f

ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ng that th is c ou rt a ff ir m th e a c tio n o f thetr ia l c ou rt pu rs ua nt t o Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R

. The petiti on fails t o prese nt a cognizable c laim for habe as cor pus relief . Acc ording ly , the state' s motion i s g rante d and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt Aff irm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Cr im . App. R.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J
., d el i v er ed the opinion of the c ourt, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J
., and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., joined.

Dexter Fr ank Johnson, Henning, Te nnessee , pro se.

Paul G. S ummers, Att orney Gene ral and Reporter ; Michelle Chapman Mc I ntire, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Will iam H. Cox , I I I , District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

I n aff irming the denial of a

previous habe as corpus petition, this court set f orth the history of the pe titioner’s underlying c onvictions as follows: On Februa ry 11, 1994, the petitioner e ntere d g uiltypleas to two counts of f irst deg ree murder, c riminal attempt to commit first degr ee mur der, a nd crimin al attempt to commit agg ravated robbe ry . The a ppellant re ceive d two life sentenc es for the murder convictions, twenty -five y ear s for the attempted murder conviction and six y ea rs fo r t he

a t t e m p t e d a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y c o n v i c t i o n

. T h e s e s e n t e n c e s w e r e o r d e r e d t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u rr e n t l y. See De x ter Johnson v. S tate, No. 03C01-9707- CR-00241 (Tenn. Crim . App. Fe b. 2, 1999), app. denied ( Tenn. June 14, 1999). The pe titioner filed a pe tition for post-conviction re lief, asse rting that his guilty pleas we re not voluntarily made. The trial court denied relief
, and this c ourt aff

irmed the judgme nt on appea l. See Dexter J ohnson v. State, No. 03C01-9503-CR-00088 (Te nn. Crim. App. Fe b. 6, 1996), app. dismissed (Te nn. Nov. 9, 1998).

On De c e mbe r 2 2, 20 03 , th e pe tit ion e r f ile d th e ins ta nt, se c on d, pr o s e pe tit ionse e kin g a writ of ha be a s c or pu s in the Cr imi na l Co urt f or Hamil tonCou nty . T he pe tit ion e r a sse rt e d o nly a c la imT he t r i al cour t not ed, howev er , t hat t he r et ur n a dd r es s on t he env el op e of t he s ubmi t t ed pet i t i on i ndi cat ed t hat 1
the p e tit io n e r w a s inc a rc e ra te d in H e n n ing , T e n n e sse e

. -2- of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel, alleg ing that his trial counsel c onspired with the prose cutor by having another

defe ndant wea

r a wireta p in an eff ort to obta in e vidence reg arding char g es to which the petitioner ultimately

pleade d g uilty . The trial c ourt noted that the pe tition di d not include a c opy of the judg ment being challeng ed, fa iled to state whethe r it was the f irst application for the writ, and didno t st a te the pe tit ion e r’ s p la c e of inc arc e ratio n. F urthe r f

ind ing that th e pe tit ion faile d to state 1 a valid habe as cor

pus claim, the court summarily denied r elief. I n support of its motion for summary aff irmance
, the state submits that the trial court proper ly denied the pe tition on procedura l gr ounds and for lack of merit.

Th e pu rp os e of

a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionis t o c on te st v oida nd no t me re ly vo ida ble judgme nts. Arche r v. State, 851 S.W . 2d 157, 163 (Tenn. 1993) (citing State ex rel. Newsom v. Hende rson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W .2d 186, 189 (1968)) . Habe as cor pus relief is available only

when it a pp e ars on the fa c e of

the jud g me nt o r the re c or d th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ict ionto convict or se ntence the def endant or that his sentence has expired. Arc her, 851 S.W.2d at 164. The burden is on the pe titioner to establish that t h e j u d gm en t i s void or that the sentenc e has e x pired. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bo m ar , 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291-92 (1964). A tria l court may summarily

dismiss a petition for writ of habea s corpus without the appointm ent of a lawy er a nd without an evidentiary

hearing if t h er e i s n o t hing on the fac e of the judgme nt to indicate that the convictions addre ssed there in are v o i d

. Passare lla v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

I nitially
, the petitioner has failed to c omply with the proce dural require ments for h ab eas corpus r elief. The petitioner fa iled to include in support of hi s petition a copy of the judg ment by which he is be ing r estraine d and he ha s offe red no explanation for his failure to do so. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-107( b)(2)

. Simi larly , the petitioner ha s provided no re ason for filing his petition in a court other than the c ourt locate d closest in point of distance to him. See Te nn. C o de Ann. § 29-21-105. As obse rved by the trial court, and as his brief on appea l a lso r efle cts, it appear s that the petitioner is prese ntly

incar cer ated in the West Tennessee State Penitentiary in Henning , Tenne ssee. T h i s c o u r t m a y t ak e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h e f a c tt h a tt h a tf

a c i l i t y i s l o c a t e d i n Lau d e r d a l e C o u n t y, Tenne ssee, whi ch co u n ty is closer in distance to the petitioner than Hamilton C ounty , Tenne ssee, wher e the pe tition was filed. State ex rel. L eac h v. Avery , 215 Tenn. 425, 426-27, 387 S.W. 2d 346, 347-48 (1964) , reh’ g denied (Tenn. Mar. 4, 1965). The proce dural requireme nts for habeas c orpus relief are mandatory

and must be scr

upulouslyfollowed. Arc her, 851 S.W .2d at 165. The failure to comply with statutory require ments for relief provides a proper basis for dism issal of the pe tition.

Moreove r, the pe titioner has alleg ed neither a fa cially

invali d judgme nt nor an e x pired sentenc e. A c laim of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel, i f p roven, would render the cha lleng ed judgme nts voidable ra t h er than void and ther efor e does not pre sent a c og nizable claim for ha beas corpus r elief. Se e P as sare lla, 891 S.W . 2d at 627; Luttrell v. State, 644 S.W . 2d 408, 409 (Tenn.-3-

Cr im. Ap p. 19 82 ). Th e " a uth orize d a ve nu e fo r atta c kin g a vo ida ble jud g me nt i s a

pe tit ion fo r p os tconviction re lief." State v. McClintock, 732 S.W .2d 268, 272 (Tenn. 1987). As noted, howe ver, the petitioner has pr eviously

exercised his right to seek post-c onviction relief. T he petition for ha beas corpus r elief w as prope rly denied f or lac k of merit.

Ac c or din g ly , th e state ’s mot ion is g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d in

acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Te nnessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

____________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE