1



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

AT JAC KSON

ELTON BOWER S v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty

No. 9745 Jon K. Blackwood , Judge

No. W2004-02407-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Jul y 13, 2005

The Petitioner, Elton Bow ers, a ppeals the trial court' s denial of his petiti on for ha beas c orpus re lief. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that thi s C o u rt af fi rm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The State' s motion i s g rante d. The judgment of the trial court is af firmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e 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.

J. Col in M or

ri s, Jac ks on , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; David Edwa rd Coenen, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

T h e Pe ti ti o n e r , E lt o n B o w e r s , is c u rr e n tl y c o n f in e d a t th e H ar d e man Co u n ty Co rr e c tiona l Fa cility in Harde man County , Tenne ssee. On A ug ust 24, 2004, the Petiti oner, repr esente d by counsel, filed a

petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus re lief. Withi n the petition, Petiti oner B ower s a lle g e d that he is be ing “ ill e g a lly re str a ine d of [his ] l ibe rt y .” As g ro un ds fo r the ill e gal restr a int , Petitioner alleg ed (1) “he w as sentenc ed as a Rang e I I I offe nder when he should ha ve been se ntence d2

to a lower Rang e,” ( 2) “his convic tions in Nashville, Davidson County Circuit Court C-3574, were not in compliance with the State of Tennessee v . Mackey, 55 3 S.W. 2d 37 7 ( [Te nn .] 19 77 ), ” (3 ) h is eff ective 105- y ear

sentenc e in the Department of Correc tion “def eats the purpose of the Sente ncing Reform Ac t o f 1 9 8 9 , ” (4) counsel was inef fec tive for f

ailing to c halleng e the imposition of
c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s, a nd(5 ) the Sta te faile d to su bmi t no tic e with in ten day s o f h is t ri a l of its intent to seek enhanc ed punis hment.” By order enter ed S eptember 3, 2004, the trial court dismi ssed the p et i t i o n , finding that the petition failed to state a cog nizable claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. Petitioner filed a timely

notice of a

ppeal doc ument.
I nitially , we note that the Petitioner has fa iled to attach a ny judgme nts of conviction t o the petition for habe as cor

pus relief. I n this reg ard, in a ddition to procedura l default, Petit ioner ha s place d both the trial court and this Court in an adve rsarial position of determining what convic tions
are challeng ed within the contex t of the issues ra ised in this habeas c orpus petition. As rec og nized by the Sta te , th e Pe tit ion e r wa s c on vic te d o f a g g ra vate d r ob be ry on thr e e se pa

rate oc c a sio ns . F ir st, Petitioner Elton Bowe rs was c onvicted of a g g rav at ed ro b b ery and possession of a

deadly wea pon resulting from a J anuary 1992 robbery of the Day s I nn motel in J ackson, Te nnessee

. See State v

. Elton Bowers, No. 02C01-9308-CR-00180, 1994 WL 553368, * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Oct. 12, 1994), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. Ma r. 6, 1995). F or these of

fense s, the Petitioner was sentenc ed, as a

rang e I I offe nder, to c oncurr ent sentenc es of twe nty y ear s for the r obbery

and four y ear s for the w eapons of

fens e. Id. On direc t appea l, this C ourt aff irmed the a g g ravated robbe ry conviction and sentenc e, but merg ed the wea pons offe nse i nto the ag g ravated robbe ry conviction. Id. Ne xt, Pe tit ion e r B ow e rs wa s c on vic te d o f a g g ra vate d r ob be ry a ndpo ssessi on of a de a dly
wea pon for the Marc h 7, 1992, robbery of the Saving s Oil convenienc e store in Jackson, Tenne ssee. See State v. Elton D onald B owers aka Reshid Qa w w i, N o

. 0 2 C0 1

- 9 5 0 3

- CC

- 0 0 0 6 4 , 1 9 9 6 WL 275023, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, May 24, 1996), perm. to appeal de nied, (Tenn. 1996)

. For these c onvictions, the trial court imposed conc urre nt rang e I I I sentenc es of thirty and six y ear s respe ctively

. Id. At some point, the trial court merg ed the wea pons offe nse w i t h t h e a gg ravated robbery offe nse. Id. On direc t appea l, a pan el of this Court affirmed the ag g ravated robbe ry conviction and a ccompa ny ing thirty -y ear rang e I I I sentenc e. Id. Fina l l y , P eti tioner B ower s was convicted of ag g ravated robbery and possession of a wea pon for the Ma

rch 11, 1992, r obbery

of a Texaco F ood Mart in J ackson, Te nnessee

. Se e Sta te v . E lto n D on ald Bo we rs a k

a R as hid Qa wwi, No. 02C01-9509-CC-00282, 1997 WL 13743, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 16, 1997), perm. to appeal de nied, (Tenn. Sept. 8, 1997). The trial c ourt merg ed the we apons off ense into the ag g ravated robbe ry

conviction and se ntence d the Petitioner, as a c are er of fende r to t hirty

y ear s confine ment. Id. On direc t a ppeal, a panel of this Court aff irmed the Petitioner’s c onviction for
a g g r a v a te d r o b b e ry

. Id. Howeve r, this Court found that the Petitioner was e rrone ously classified
a s a c ar e e r o f

f e n d e r a n d r e ma n d e d th e matt e r f o r e n try o f a s e n te n c e w ith in r a n g e I I I

. Id. at *5. Acc ording ly , as we infer that all three c onvictions are c halleng ed within the petition.
The State of T ennesse e has f iled a motion reque sting that this Court a ffirm the trial court’ s de nia l of ha be a s c or pu s re lie f pu rs ua nt to Rul e 20 , Rul e s of the Cou rt of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls. As ba sis for its motion, the State asserts ( 1) the Petitioner has fa iled to comply with the mandatory

proce dural require ments of habea s corpus relief , (2) the leg ality of the restra int ha s previously been a djudge d in a prior p ro ce ed i n g , and (3) the petition fails to state a c olorable c laim for habe as cor pus relief

.3

The State’s position is well-taken.

We a g r e e w ith th e St a te th a t th e p e ti ti o n is s u b je c t to d is mi s s a l f

o r f a il u r e to me et the statutory require ments for pursuing state habe as cor pus relief

. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29- 21-101- 29-21-130. Our

supre m e co u rt has re cently confirme d that the proc edura l require ments are mandatory

and must be followed sc rupulously

. See H ickman v . State, 153 S.W .3d 16 , 2 1 (Tenn. 2004). The Petitioner did not attach to his petition either copies of the challeng ed judg ments or the indictments. He also fails to g ive a sa tisfactory rea son for their a

bsence

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-107(b) (2). An a

pp l i ca t i on for the issuanc e of ha beas c orpus may

be summarily

dismiss ed for fa i lure to attac h the judg ment forms. Id. The Petitioner has a lso failed to verify his petition by aff idavit. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-107(a ). I n this reg ard, w e ac knowledg e that counse l
a tte mpt e d to sa tis fy

thi s re qu ir e me nt by fi lin g a mot ion to su pp le me nt the re c or d in thi s Co urt. T his motion was denied by this Court on May 16, 2005. Se e El ton Bo we rs v . S tat e , No. W2004-02407- CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 16, 2005) ( order). Next, as a g round for

habea s corpus re lief, Petitioner challeng es the rang e I I I sentenc es i m p o s ed

. P et i t i o n erch al l en ged t h e r an ge II I cl as s i fi ca t i o n o n d i re ct ap p ea l

. R ega rd i n g t h e r an ge I I I sentenc e imposed for

the Marc h 7, 1992, robbery of the Saving Oil convenienc e store, this Court held that, “[b]ecause the defe ndant had at least five prior class B, C , or D felony convictions, the trial court prope rly

classified the defe ndant as a persistent off ender .” Se e Sta te v . E lto n D on ald Bo we rs , No. 02C01

- 9 5 03-CC-00064, 1996 WL 275023, at *3. Moreove r, this Court determined, with re g ard to the conviction for the Marc h 1992 robbery of the Te x aco F ood Mart, tha t t h e Petitioner wa s improperly

classified a s a ca

ree r off ender

. Se e Sta te v . E lto n D on ald Bo we rs , N o. 02 C01 -9 50 9- CC00282, 1997 WL

13743, at * 5. This Court concluded, howe ver, that the Petitioner did qualify as a ra ng e I I I

offe nder. Id. Acc ording ly , the Petition er ’s classification as a ra ng e I I I offe nder ha s alre ady been a djudicated in a prior proce eding

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-107(b) (3). Finally , it is well established that th e grounds upon which habeas c orpus re lief may be g rante d in this st ate a

re na rrow. Hickm an, 15 3 S

. W.3d at 20 (citations omitt ed). Relief will be g rante d if the petition e stablishes that the challeng ed judgme nt is void. Id. A jud g me nt is v oid" on ly when ' [i ]t appea

rs upon the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt is render ed' that a convic ting c ourt was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defe nd ant , o r t hat a def

end ant 's sen ten ce of

im pri so nm ent or ot her rest rai nt has ex pi red. " Hickm an, 1 5 3 S

. W

. 3 d at 2 0 (q u o t i n g State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted)). The pe titioner bear s the burden of establishing e ither a void judg ment or an illeg al conf inement by a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e. Pa ssa re lla v . S tat e , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p. 1994). I f the pe titioner car ries this burden, he is entitled to im mediate r elea se. Id.
Petiti o n er claims that (1) he w as er roneously classified a s a ra ng e I I I offe nder, ( 2) the unidentified " Nashville" con v i cti ons used to enhanc e his sentenc es we re obta ined in violation of State v. Mac key, (3) his ef fec tive sentenc e violat es t h e p u rpose of the 1989 Sentencing Act, (4) counsel wa s ineffe ctive, an d (5) the State f ailed to provide him timely notice of its intent to seek enhanc ed punishment. None of these claims result i n an il leg al or void judgment a nd, there fore , are not s u b j ect to habe as cor

pus relief

. Se e ge ne ra lly Pa ssa re lla , 891 S.W .2d at 627 (c laims of4

ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

c ou ns e l rend e r a

jud g me nt v oid able , n ot v oid ); Steve n L. Anderson v. W arden Glen Turner and State of Tennessee , No. W 2004-00623-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 396378, * 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, F eb. 18, 2005), perm. to appeal denied , (Tenn. May 23, 2005) (alleg ation that trial court f ailed to comply

with Mackey require ment not g round for ha beas c orpus re lie f) ; Mi l b u rn L. Edwards v. State, No. M2004-01378-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 544714, at *2 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. , at N a sh vil le , M ar. 7, 20 05 ) (c itatio n omi tte d) (S ta te ' s failu re to g ive no tic e of its int e nt t o s e e k e nh a nc e d pun ish me nt d oe s n ot r e su lt i n a n il le g a l or vo id j ud g me nt) ; Jame s Oliver Ro ss v . S tat e , No. W2003-00843-CCA-R3-HC, 2003 WL 23100816, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App

. , at J ackson, D ec. 31, 2003) (issues of e nhance ment or excessive sente nce w ill not support a c laim for habea s corpus re lief). Where the alleg ati o ns in a petition for writ of ha beas c orpus re lief do not de mon str a te th at th e jud g me nt i s v oid , a tr ia l c ou rt

ma y c or re c tly dis mis s th e pe tit ion wi tho ut a hearing. McLan ey v . B e ll , 59 S.W .2d 90, 93 (Tenn. 2001)

.

The Petitioner has not e stablished that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief. He has alleg ed neither

a fa cially invalid judgment nor

an expired sentenc e. Acc ording ly , it is ordered that th e Sta te ’s mot ion is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE