1



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

AT JAC KSON

JEFF ERYYA TES v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE, TOM MYMILLS , WAR DEN
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 07-CR-9086-HC R. Le e Moor e, Jr., Judge

No. W2007-02868-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Augu st 27, 2008

The Petitioner, Jeffer

y Yates, appea ls the t rial court's denial of hi s petition for habe as cor pus relief . The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court a ffirm the tria l court' s denial of r elief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. W e conc lude that the S tate' s motion is m e ri tor iou s. Ac c or din g ly , we g ra nt t he State ' s mo tio n a

nd a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he low e r c ourt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e ntof t he Tr ialCo ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to 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. , d e l i v e r e d the op ini on o f th e c o urt , i nw h i c hJ. C. M C L IN and C AM I L L E R. M C M UL L EN , J J ., joined.
J eff ery D. Yate s, pro se. Rob e rt E. Cooper, J r., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; J. Ro ss Dy er, A ssistant Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION

In 20 0 3 , t h e Petitioner, J eff rey Yates, w as convic ted of a g g ravated robbe ry resultingfrom an incident oc curr ing in 2001. See State v. Je ffrey Y ates , No. W2003-02422-CCA-MR3-CD (Tenn. C ri m
. Ap p
. , at J ackson, July 21, 2005), perm. to appeal de nied, ( T e n n
. , D e c
. 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 )

. F or thi s offe nse, the Petitioner re ceive d a thirty -y ear sentenc e as a

rang e I I Icar eer

offe nder. T his Court aff irmed the Petitioner’s judg ment of convic tion and resulting sentence on direc t appea l. Id. Prior to t his c onvic tio n a

nd se nte nc e , th e Pe tit ion e r h a d b e e n co nv ic te d in 19 93 of c ri min a l atte mpt

to2

c omm it a g g ra

vate d r ob b e r

y , e s p e c i a l l y

a g gr a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g , a n d a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ing . F or

the se 1 9 9 3 c o n v i c t i o n s , th e P e t i t i o n e r r e c e i v e d ane f f e c t i v e s e n t e n c e o f e i g h t e e n y e ar s i n c ar c e r at i o n
. In 1994, the Petitioner was c o n v i cted of ag g ravated assault, two counts of unla wful possession of coca ine wit h intent to sell, and four counts of aggravated assault. For these 1994 c onvictions, the Petitioner rec eived a

n eff ective se ntence of ten year s incarc eration.
On Novembe r 14, 2007, the Petitioner filed, in the L ake County Circuit Court, a petition for ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f. As g ro un ds fo r r e lie f, the Pe tit ion e r a lle g e d th at th e 19 94 c onvic tio ns us e d to e nh anc e his status to th at of a c are e r o ff

e nd e r w e re vo id. Spe c if

ic a lly , th e Pe tit ion e r a

rgue d th at, since he was re lease d on bail when he committed the crimes leading to these 1994 convic tions, the se nte nc e s f

or the 19 94 c onvic tio ns sh ou ld have be e n s e rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to t he 19 93 c onvic tio ns
. By order enter ed De cembe r 10, 2007, the lowe r cour t denied habe as cor

pus relief

. The State has filed a motion reque sting that this Court aff irm the l ower

court' s denial of r elief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Te nnessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The State asser ts that the Petitioner has completed se rvice of all of the sentenc es from his 1994 c onvictions, and, there fore , is not unde r restra int by those sentenc es. In this re g ard, the State contends that the Petitioner is not e nti tle d to ha

be a s c or pu s r e lie f as the c onvic tio n und e r wh ic h he is curr e ntl y re str a ine d is no t vo id and has not e x pired.
The de termination of whe ther to g rant ha beas corpus relief is a question of law. A s such, we wi ll re vie w the ha

be a s c or pu s c ourt ' s f

ind ing s de novo w i th o u ta p r e s u mp t i o no f

c o r re c tne ss. Moreove r, it is the petitioner' s burden to demonstrate, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidence, “ that the sentenc e is void or t hat t he conf inement is illega l.” W

yatt v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

.
Article I , section 1 5 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es an a ccuse d the rig ht to seek habea s corpus re lief. See Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only

when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re cord that the convictingcourt was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the de fenda nt or that the def

endant is still im prisoned despite the e x piration of his sentenc e. Archer v . State, 85 1 S. W.2 d 1 57 , 1 64 (T e nn .1 99 3) ; Poets v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . I n ot her wor ds, h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f m ay

be so ug ht o nly when the judg ment is void, not mere ly voidable. Se e Tay lor

, 995 S.W .2d at 83. “A void judg ment ‘i s o ne in whic h t he jud g me nt i s f a c ia lly inv a lid be c a us e the c ourt

la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n o r a

uth or ity to rende r t he judg ment or bec ause the defe ndant' s sentence has expired.’ We have rec og nized that a sente nce imposed in dire ct contra vention of a statute, for example, is void and illeg al.” Stephenson v. Carlton, 2 8 S

. W

. 3 d

9 1 0 , 9 1 1 (T en n
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Tay lor , 955 S.W .2d at 83). Howeve r, if af

ter a revie w of the ha b ea s petitioner' s filings the ha beas c orpus cour

t de te rm ine s th at th e pet iti on e r w ou ld n ot b e e nti tle d to re lie f, the n th e pe tit ion may be summa

ri ly dis mis se d. T . C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 9; Sta tee xre l. B y rd v . B om ar

, 381 S. W

. 2 d 2 8 0 (T enn. 1964). Fur ther, a habea s corpus court may summarily

dismiss a petition for wr it of habea s corpus without the appointment of a

lawy er and without an evidentiary hear ing if there is nothing on the fa ce of the3

judgme nt to indicate that the convictions addr essed ther ein ar e void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619 (T en n. Crim. App. 1994), superce ded by statute as stated in State v. Stev en S. Newman, No. 02C01-9707-CC-00266 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).

The Petitioner is not e ntitled to habeas c orpus re lief. It is well-settled that “ha beas c orpus relief is not available for expired sentenc es that are used solely to enhanc e a subse quent conviction.” See Paul W

ilson v. Stephen Dotson, W arden, No. W2005-02317-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma

y 4, 2006), perm. to appe al denied, (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2006) . Indeed, in Hickm an v. State, 153 S.W .3d 15, 23 (Tenn. 2004) , our supre me cour t expl ained: A p e rs on is n ot “ re str a ine d o f l ibe rt y ” fo r p ur

po ses of the ha be a s c or pu s st atut e un l es s th e c h al l en gedj u d gm en ti t s el f i mp o s es a r es tra i n tu p o nth e p et i t i o n er 's fre edom of a ction or movement. Use of the c halleng ed j u d gm en t to enhanc e the se nte nc e imp os e d on a se pa rate c onvic tio n is no t a re str a int on lib e rt y su ffi cie nt to permit a ha

beas c o rp u s challenge to the orig inal conviction longafte r the sente nce on the orig inal conviction has e x pired. In Be ns on v . S

tate , Be nson pleade d g uilty to sever al offe nses in 1993. Benson , 153 S.W .3d 27, 32 (Tenn. 2004) . All of the 1993 convic tions were or dere d to be served concurre ntly for an eff ective sentenc e of e ight year s. These c onvictions were later use d to enhanc e B enson’s status to a ca ree r offe nder on a subsequent conviction. In 2002, Be nson filed a habea s corpus petition, alleg ing that three of these 1993 offe nses were commit ted while he w as re lease d on bail. Pointi ngto Tennesse e Code Annotated se ction 40-20-111( b) and Te nnessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c) (3 )(C), Be nson claimed that the tria l court wa s require d to impose consecutive se ntence s. Be cause the concur rent sente nces w ere i l l egally imposed, Be nson argued that the judg ments were void and he shou l d b e al l o we d to withdraw his guilty pleas. The supreme c ourt held that B enson wa s not prese ntly “imprisoned or restra ined of liberty” by any of the 1993 c onvictions beca use the sente nces co mp l ai n edo f w er e s erv edan d ex p i re d b ef o re B e n s o n fi l eda h ab ea s co rp u s p et i t i o nt o ch al l en ge them. Benson, 153 S.W .3d at 32. We are unable to distinguish the prese nt challeng e to either the supreme c ourt’s rulingin Benson or the supre me cour t’s prec edent in Hickm an.
The Petitioner is not curr ently restra ined of his liberty as a result of the c onvictions of which he now c omplains. He i s not entitled to habeas c orpus re lief fr om a sentenc e fully serve d. Rather, a p e t i t i o n e r

m ay o n l y s e e k h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f “ w h e nth e c h a l l e n g e d

j u d g m e n ti t s e l f imp os e s a restra int upon the petitioner’s fr eedom of action or move ment.” Hickm an , 153 S.W .3d at 22. When an opinion would have no p re ce dential value, the Court of Criminal Appeals may a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f th e tr ia l c ourt 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 proce e din gwi tho ut a jur y and su c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a deter mination of guilt, and the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the findi ng of t he trial judge. SeeTenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. W e conc lude t h at t h i s ca s e satisfies the criteria of Rule 20. Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d th at th e S tate' s mo tio n is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is4

a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th R

ule 20 , Ru le s o f t

he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

___________________________________ 

### ALA N E . G LEN N, JUD GE