1



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

AT JAC KSON

RICKY NORT HERN v . STATE O F TENNESSE E, STE PHEN DOTS ON, WAR DEN
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 05-02-0073 JoeH. Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2005-02165-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 23, 2006

The P eti tioner, Ricky

Northern, appeals the lower c ourt’s denia l of his petition for habea s corpus re lie f. Th e State ha s f

ile d a motionre qu e sti ng that th is C ou rt a ff irm th e tria l c ou rt

pu rs uant t o Ru le 20, Rules of the Court o f Criminal Appea ls. The Petitioner has failed to alleg e any g round that wo uldre nd e r the jud g me nt o f c on vic tio n v oid

. Ac c or din g ly , we a ff irm th e tria l c ou rt ’s dis mis sa l.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co 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
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 AND A L AN E. G L EN N , J J . joined. Ricky Northern, pro se. Paul G

. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Rachel Willi s, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appellee , the State of Te nnessee .

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION The Petitioner, Ricky

Northern, enter ed a g uiltyplea, on Nove mber 13, 2003, to one count of murder

in the second de g ree . For this conviction, he was o rd er ed t o serve twenty y ear s c on fi ne me nt i n th e De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n. Pe tit ion e r i s c ur re ntl y c on fi ne d at th e Whit e vil le Correc tional Fac ilityin Harde man County

.T he P et i t i o ner has el ect ed not t o s eek t hi s C o urt ’ s revi ew o f hi s cl ai m s t hat t ri al co unsel was i nef fect i ve 1
a n d tha t his g u ilt y p le a w a s n o t kn o w ing ly an d vo lun ta rily en te re d . N o tw ithsta n d ing , w e no te tha t suc h c la im s w o u ld n ot h av e en t i t l ed Pet i t i on er t o h abe as c or pu s r el i ef a s s u ch c l ai ms w ou l d me r el y r en der h i s c on v i ct i on v oi dabl e, n ot v oi d.

2 On Aug ust 16, 2005, the Petiti oner f iled a petiti on for habeas corpus relief. As g rounds for relief , Petitioner alleg ed that the judg ment ag ainst him was void and h i s s en t ence was illeg al. Specifica lly , the Petitioner complained that trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive and that his guilty plea wa s involuntarily

enter ed. Additionally , he asse rted that his sentenc e wa s illega l as t h e t rial court imposed a sentenc e of twe nty y ear s at one hundre d perc ent re lease elig ibilit y for a Class A felony in violation of the mandates of Blakely v. Wa s h i n gton, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. C t. 2531 (2004). Petitioner contends that the maximum s entenc e that could ha ve bee n imposed was a f ifteen y ear s e n t e n c e a t o n e h u n d r e d p e r c e n t

. T h e tr i a l c o u rt d e n i e d r e l i e f o n A u g u s t 2 3 , 2 0 0 5

. I n s umm a ri ly denying r elief, the trial court noted that the petition failed to state a c laim for habe as cor pus relief in that the holding in B lakely v. Washington wa s not to be applied re troac tively to case s on collater al appe al and, e ven if it did, such a claim would m ere ly rende r the c onviction voidable, not void. Finally , the trial court rec og nized that the Tennessee Supreme C ourt found the B lakely holding inapplicable to the 1989 Sente ncing Act. (c iting State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (T enn. 2005))

. A timely notice of a

ppeal wa s filed by

the Petitioner. I n this state, the g rounds upon which habeas corpus petitions are g rante d arenarr ow. Habe as corpus r elief only

addre sses detentions that result from void judg ments or expired sentenc es. See Arc her, 851 S.W.2d at 164. A judg ment i s v o i d “only when ‘ [i ]tappea

rs upon the fa ce 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 o r authorit y to sentencea def

endant, or that a def

endant’ s sentence of imprisonment or other r estraint has e x pired.” Hickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (citations om itted)). The petitioner bea rs the burde n of establishing either a void judgment or

an il leg al confinement by a preponderance of the evidenc e. Passar ella v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) . I f the pe titioner car ries this burden, he is entitled to immediate relief

. Howeve r, wher e the alleg ations in a petition fo r writ of ha

be a s c or pu s d o n ot d e mon str a te that th e jud g me nt i s v oid , a tria l c ou rt

may c or re c tly dismiss th e p e ti ti o n w ith o u t a h e ar in g . M c L a n e y

v . B e ll , 5 9 S. W. 3 d9 0 , 9 3 ( T e n n . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c iting T.C.A. § 29-21-109 ( 20 0 0 ); s ee , e.g ., Arc her, 851 S.W.2d at 164 (par enthetica l omitt ed)) . The Petitioner do es n o t contend that his sentenc e has e x pired, thus, he is only entitled to relief if

the judgme nt of conviction ag ainst him is voi d. The c rux of the Petiti oner’ s claim is that the decision in Bla kely v. Washington has r ender ed his s e n te n c e v o id a n d th a t th e s e n te n c e imp o s e d b y th e trial c o u rt w a s il le g a l a s it ex cee ded the statutory maxi mum sentence permitted for the offe nse. Such a claim does not e ntitle the Petiti oner 1 to habea s corpus relief

. Any claim that his sentencewas e nhance d in violation of his right to a jury trial would rende r the judg ment voidable, not void. See, e.g., Wayford De monbruen, Jr. v. St ate, No. M2004-03037-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 1541873, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J un. 30, 2005); Stanley

Harvell v. Glen Turne r, No. W2004-02643-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 83 9 8 91, *1W e f urt her ackno wl ed ge t hat , even i f s uch a vi o l at i o n rendered a s ent ence vo i d , t he d eci si o n i n B la k e ly is 2
n o t t o b e giv e n re tro a c tive a p p lica tio n , s ee St at e v . G om ez , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d 6 3 2 (T e n n .), r eh’g deni ed , (2 0 0 5 ); Is aac H e rro n v . S ta te , N o . W 2 0 0 4

- 0 2 5 3 3

- C C A

- R 2 8

- P C (T enn. C ri m . A p p . , at Jackson, N o v. 22 , 20 0 4 ) ( order ), and t he d eci si o n i n B la k e ly is no t ap p lica b le to the 1 9 8 9 S e n te n c ing A c t. G o m e z, 163 S. W

. 3d a t 632. 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, A pr. 12, 2005); Ea rl Da v i d Crawf ord v. Ricky

Be ll, No. M 2004- 02 44 0- CCA -R 3- HC , 2 00 5 WL 35 41 06 , * 1 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. , at N a sh vil le , F e b. 15 . 2 00 5) . T hu s, the Petitioner’s cla im is notcog nizable in a habea s corpus proc eeding

. Moreove r, the Petitioner’s 2 claim that the minimum sentenc e was not imposed is in error. T he trial c ourt imposed a twenty y ear sentenc e for

a cla ss A felony . The pre sumptive mini mum sentence for a cla s s A fe l ony

is the midpoint within the rang e. See T.C.A. § 40-35-210( c). For a rang e I standard of fe n d er , the min imu m pr e su mptivese nte nc e is t we nty y e ars , i. e ., these nte nc e imp os e d b y thetria l c ou rt

. The trial c ourt determined that the Petitioner was not ent i t l ed t o habea s corpus re lief and pr op e rl y dis mis se d th e pe tit ion wi tho ut app oin tme nt of c ou ns e l or a he ari ng . Th e State ’s mot ionis g rante d. The judgment of the t rial court is aff irmed i n acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Crimi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE