# FILED
Sep te mb er 1 3, 19 95 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON JU NE 1995 SESSI ON

ME LVIN C UR RI E, ) NO . 02C 01- 9501- CC -0 0020 ) Ap pe l l an t ) H AYW OO D C OU N TY ) V. ) HON. DICK JERMAN, JR

. ) J U D G E STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) ) (Habea s corpus) Appel lee )

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: Me lv in Cur ri e, P ro Se Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Reg . N o. 13 338- 076 Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter F. C. I. Me mphis 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay 1101 J ohn A. D eni e R oad Nas hv il le, Tenness ee 3724 3- 0493 Me mphis , Tennes see 38184- 0550 Cy ri l V. F ra ser Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, Tenness ee 3724 3- 0493 Cl ay bur n L. Peepl es District Attorney Gene ral 109 Ea st Fi rs t St re et Trent on, Tennes see 38382

OPIN ION F ILED : ___

_________

_ REVERSE D AND REMANDED W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge2 OPIN ION On Novemb er 3, 19 93, the ap pellan t f iled a pro se p etition collaterally attac ki ng hi s M ar ch 4, 19 91, fel ony co nv ic ti on i n the C ircui t C our t of H ayw ood C ounty

. The peti ti on w as one s eeki ng a w ri t of habeas co rp us. By order ente re d M ay

18, 1994, the t ri al cour

t di smi ss ed th e pet it ion w it hout appoi nti ng co unsel for t he appe ll ant and w it hout an ev ide nti ar y hear ing

. It is from t he ac ti on of the tr ial co urt i n di smi ss ing the p eti ti on th at t his appeal i s t aken. After carefull y

co nsi der ing the re cord i n thi s c ase, the appl ic abl e l aw , and the
arg uments of the p arti es, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n di smi ss ing the peti ti on w it hout appoi nti ng co unsel and w it hout condu cti ng an e v ide nti ar y hear ing

. Acc ordin g ly , w e rev erse the t ri al cour t' s s ummary

di smi ss al of the appe ll ant' s p eti ti on and remand th is ca use w it h di re cti ons to t he tr ial co urt t o appoi nt c ounse l for th e ind ig ent a ppel lan t and to condu ct an ev ide nti ar y hear ing to deter mine if the facts suppo rtthe g ra nti ng of any reli ef to the appel lan t. In hi s i nar

tfull y draw n pet it ion the appel lan t al leg ed th at: (1 ) The tr ial co urt ex ceede d i ts jur is dicti on i n s entenc ing hi m to a se n t e n c e in e xc e s s o f t h a tp ro vid e d b y la w; (2) His g uilty plea w as involunta rily and not inte llig ent ly entered; a nd (3) He w as de nied ef fective assistance of

coun sel. In Pa ssarella v. Sta te, 8 91 S. W .2d 619 , 626 -27 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 199 4), this Cou rtoutl ine d the ci rc umstan ces under w hic h habea s c or pus re li ef is av ail abl e: It is a w ell -e sta bli shed pr inc ipl e of la w thatthe re medy

of habeas co rp us is l imi ted i n s cope as w ell as reli ef. In cr imi nal ca ses , t he remedy i s l imi ted t o c ases w here the jud g ment i s v oid or

the ter m of impr is onment h as ex pired .

. . I f the c our

t render ing a j udg ment has jur is dicti on of the person, the subj ect -mat ter , and has the aut hority to make the cha llenged jud gmen t, the judgmen t is v oida ble, n ot void; and the jud gmen t ma y not be collaterally a t t a c k e d i n a s u i tfo r

h a b e a s c o r p u s re l i e f.3 Appel lan t' s c lai m thatthe tr ial co urt l ack ed j ur is dicti on to se ntenc e hi m to a ter m in ex ces s o f that prov ide d by l aw , i f true , w oul d render hi s c onv ic ti on v oid

. See Archer v. Sta te, 8 51 S. W .2d 157 (Ten n. 19 93). Cen tral to ap pel lan t' s c lai m in thi s reg ard i s h is co ntent ion thathe p led g uil ty to C ount 1 of a fiv e c ount ind ic tment. The S tate arg ues that he w as conv ic ted o f one (1) countof

the ind ictme nt, n ot Coun t 1 of the ind ictme nt. T he ind ictme nt cha rg es, in Cou nt 1, thati n D ecember , 198 8, t he appe ll ant s old co unter feit c ocai ne. The
re maini ng co unts i nv olv ed th e feloni ous poss ess ion and/ or sa le of coca ine

. Althou gh the "P lea of

Guiltyand W aivers of

Jury Trial and Appe al" form ex ecut ed by

the appel lan t s uppor

ts the p osi ti on of the Stat e i n thi s reg ard, t he tr ue source of the c onfusio n i n thi s c ase is the inc onsi ste ncy on t he face o f the j udg ment entered on Ma rc h 4, 1991, follo w ing the appel lan t' s g uil ty pl ea. On on e pl ace the jud g ment form i ndi cat es that the a ppel lan t w as conv ic ted o n C ount 1 of the ind ic tment (s ell ing co unter

feit c ocai ne) , and y et t he body of the j udg ment form re flect s t hat h e
w as conv ic ted o f the s ale of coc ain e ( the o ff ense charg ed i n C ount 3 of the ind ic tment)

. W hen the ap pellan t ent ered his g uilty plea , the crime of selling coun terfeit
c o c a in e p ro vid e d fo r a se n t e n c e o f n o tle s s t h a n o n e (1 ) ye a r a n d n o tm o re t h a n two (2 ) y ears i mpri sonmentfor c onv ic ti on as a R ang e IC las s E felon. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40- 35- 118 ( 1994 S upp.) and § 40-35 -112 (5) ( 199 0 Repl.). T he sa le of cocaine is a Class C felo ny and person s convicted of thatof fense are to be sente nced to notless than three ( 3) y ears n or more tha n s ix

( 6) y ears a s a R ang e Ioffender

. Tenn. C ode Ann . § 40-3 5-11 8 an d § 40 -35-11 2 (3). T hus, if th e ap pellan t w as con v icted o f the of fense of selling coun terfeit
coc ain e upon his pl ea of g uil ty , t he s ix ( 6) y ear se ntenc e ex ceede d tha t al low ed by l aw for a Ran g e Ioffender

. Y et i f he w as conv ic ted o f sel li ng co cai ne upon hi s p lea of g uil ty , t he s entenc e g iv en w as w it hin the ra ng e prov ide d by l aw for a R ang e Ioffender

.4

W it hout an ev ide nti ar

y hear ing and findi ng s o f facton t his i ss ue, w e c annot deter mine
w it h any deg re e of cer

tai nty w hose posi ti on i s t he c or re ct one i n v iew of the cont ra dictor

y j udg ment order

i n thi s c ase. The remaini ng al leg ati ons of the appe ll ants peti ti on, e v en i f true , w oul d not rend er his conviction v oid as required for a w rit of hab eas co rpus, bu t w ould rende r his
conv ic ti on v oid abl e. In order for a co urt t o i ss ue a w ri t of habeas co rp us, the peti ti oner 's se ntenc e musthav e ex pired and/ or the conv ic ti on mus t be v oid and the pet itione r elig ible for imm edia te relea se. How ever, convi ctions which are eithe r v oid
or v oid abl e may

be c oll aterall y

att ack ed by

a pe ti ti on for post -c onv ic ti on reli ef purs uant to t he Pos t- Con v ic ti on Procedu re Ac t. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40-30 -105 (1990 Repl.). A pet it ion for h abeas co rp us maybe t re ated as a pet it ion for p ost -c onv ic ti on re li ef. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40-30 -108 (1990 Repl.). This pe tition was one w hich shoul d hav e been so treated. I t w as filed w it hin the three ( 3) y ear per iod of li mita ti on provided by the PostConvi ction Pro cedu re Act, an d it asserte d allegation s w hich, if tr ue, w oul d ent it le the p eti ti oner to re li ef f ro m hi s c onv ic ti on. Therefore, t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i n di smi ss ing the appel lan t' s p eti ti on is rev ersed, and thi s c ause is remanded t o the tr ial co urt for further ac ti on c onsi ste nt
w it h thi s o pin ion

. W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge Co n c u r b y:

Pa u l G. Su m m e rs, Ju d ge

Ma ry Be th Le ib o witz, S p e cia l Ju d ge