### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y

14, 200 8

JAM ES C . M URRA Y v. JAM ES F ORT NER , Ward en

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 94-C- 1532 Steve D ozier , Judge

No . M 20 07 -0 13 95 -C CA -R 3- HC - F iled May

30, 2008

The Petitioner, J ames C. Mur ray , was convicted in 1994 by a Davidson County jury of first deg ree murder a nd conspirac y

to commit first deg ree murder. The trial court sentenc ed the Petitioner to life in prison on the m urder conviction and twenty -two y ear s on the conspira cy conviction. The c ourt or de re d the se nte nc e s to be ru n c on se c uti ve ly fo r an e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e of lif

e plu s tw e nty -t

wo y e a rs

. I n this habeas corpus petit ion, the P etitioner ar g ues that the sente nce violate d the Six th Amendment to the Uni te d St a te s Co n s ti tuti o n an d is th u s v o id

. A f

te r a th o r o u g h r e v ie w o f th e is sue and
a pp lic a ble law, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he ha be a s c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J., d e liv e re d th e op ini on of the c ourt , in

wh ic h J.C. M C L I N and D. K ELLY T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.

J ames C. Murra

y , Only , Tenne ssee, Pro se.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ral and

Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l E . M oo re , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; Came ro n L . H y de r, Assi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; V ic tor

S. Joh ns on , I I I , D ist

ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Pamela Ande rson, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION I. F acts
Th e Pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio n fo r fi rst de g re e mur de r c arr ie d a min imum se nte nc e of

lif e in prison. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202( c) ( 1994). The c onspiracy to commit first deg ree murder c onviction
was a Class A fe lony , and, as suc h, car ried a possible penalty

of fifte en to twenty -five y ear s in prison
as a R ang e I

offe nder. See T.C.A. §§ 39-12-107( c), 40- 35-112(a )(1) (1994). The presumptive sentenc e wa s the m idpoint in the rang e, twenty y ear s. T.C.A. § 40-35-210( c) ( 1994). Althoug h the sentenc ing he aringwas not included in t h e rec ord, by virtue of the twe nty -two y ear sentenc e we know the trial c ourt enha

nced the Petitioner’s sentenc e on the conspiracy char g e. Additionally , the2

trial court de termined that the se ntence s shoul d b e run consecutively pursuant to Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-115.

Th e Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a pet iti on fo r ha

be a s cor pu s re lie f cl a imi ng , amo ngoth e r t hin g s, that hi s sentenc e violated Blakely

v. W ashington , 54 2 U. S. 29 6 (2 00 4) be c a us e the tr ia l c ourt c on du c te d f a c tfinding in order to e nhance the P etitioner’s sentence and run the sentence s consec utively

. Se e Sta te v. Gome z , 23 9 S. W.3 d 7 33 , 7 40 -4 1 ( Te nn . 2 00 7) (e sta bli sh ingthat, u

nd e r t he 19 89 Se nte nc ingAc t, it i s im pr op e r f or a tr ia l court to co nd

uc t fa c t- fi nd ing in or de r to e nh anc e a de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e if the fa ct is not admitted or a pre vious criminal conviction). The habea s court denie d the Petitioner’s petition beca

use t his Court has held Blak e ly violations are not cog nizable habea s claims. I t is from thi s d e c isi on

that th e Pe tit ion e r n owa pp e a ls.

II. Ana lys is On appe al, the Petitioner complains that the trial court’s decision to enhanc e his sentenc e and to run his sentence s consec utively violate the Six th A mendment to the United States Constit ution and he is thus entitled to habea s corpus re lief. The r ight to see k habea s corpus relief is gua rante ed by Article I , section 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution. Se e Fa ulk ne r v . S tat e , 226 S.W .3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007) . Although the rig ht is gua rante ed in the Tennessee Const itution, the right is gove rned by statute. T.C.A. § 29-21-101 ( 2006) et seq

. The de termination of whe ther ha beas c orpus re lief should be gra

nted i s a question of law a nd is acc ording ly

g iven de novo r eview. Sm ith v . Le wis , 202 S.W. 3d 12 4, 12 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 6) ; Ha rt v . S tat e , 2 1 S. W.3 d 9 01 , 9 03 (T e nn . 200 0)

. Al tho ug h th e re is no statutory

limit preve nting a

habea s corpus petition, the gr ounds upon which re lief ca n be g rante d
are very narr ow. Tay lor

v . S tat e , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . I t is the burden of the petitioner to demonstrate by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that “the sentenc e is void or t hat the conf inement is ill eg al.” W

y att v . S tat e , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000) . I n o t h er wo rd s , the ver y narr ow g ro un ds up on

wh ic h a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion ca n be ba se d a re a s f oll ow s: ( 1) a

c la im the re wa s a void judgment whic h was fa cially invalid beca

use the c onvicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence the def

endant; or ( 2) a c laim the defe ndant’s sente nce ha s expi red. Stephenson v. Carlton , 28 S.W. 3d 91 0, 91 1 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; Ar c he r v . S tat e , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)

. “An illeg al sentenc e, one w hose imposition di rec tly contravenes a

statute, is cons i d er ed v oid and may be set a side at any

time.” May v . Carlton , 2 4 5 S

. W

. 3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 4 (T en n

. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g State v. Bu rk ha rt , 5 6 6 S

. W

. 2 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 3 ( T e n n

. 1 9 7 8 ) )

. I n c o n t r a s t , a v o i d a b l e j u d g m e n t i s “ o n e t ha t is fa c i a l l y v a l i d an d r e qu i r e s t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f p r o o f b e y o n d t h e f a c e o f t h e r e c o r d o r j u d g m e nt t o establish its invalidity .” Taylor , 9 95 S.W. 2d a t 83 ; se e Sta te v . R ic hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 633 (Tenn. 2000).

A sente n ce i n v i o lation of statutory law has be en found to be g rounds for ha beas c orpus relief

. Se e Mc Lan e yv . B e ll , 59 S.W. 3d 90 , 93 (T e nn

. 20 01 ). Th is, ho we ve r, is a c oll a te ra l a

pp e a l, and this Court has conclude d that a B l a k e ly v i o lation does not provide g rounds for ha beas r elief beca use Blak e ly do e s no t a

pp ly re tr oa c tiv e ly

to c a se s o n c oll a te ra l a

pp e a l. See James R.W

. Rey nolds
v . S tat e , No. M2004-02254-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL736715, at *2-3 (T enn

. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar

. 31, 2005) (pursua nt to habea s corpus pe tition), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. O ct. 10,3

20 05 ); Earl David Crawford v. Ricky Bell, W arden , N o

. M 2 0 0 4

- 0 2 4 4 0

- CC A

- R3

- H C, 2 0 0 5 WL 354106, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Fe b. 15, 2005) (same), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. June 27 , 2 00 5) ; se e als o Car l J oh ns on v . S

tat e , No. W2003-02760-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 W L181699, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 25, 2005) (pursuant to petition for post-conviction re lief), perm. app. denied (T e nn . Jun e 27 , 2 00 5) ; Do na ld B ra nc h v . S tat e , No. W2003-02760-CCA-R3-PC, 2004 W L 2 9 9 6 8 9 4, at *10 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, D ec. 21, 2004) (same) , p e rm

. a p p

. denied (Tenn. Ma

y 23, 2005). As such, the Petitioner is not entitl ed to habe as cor pus relief

. III. Conclusi on
Be cause Blak

e ly does not apply

retroa ctively

to case s on collatera l appea l, the Petitioner’s claim is not a cog nizable habea s claim. The judg ment of the ha beas c ourt is affir

med.

________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE