1



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

AT JAC KSON

PA TRIC K STE WAR T v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 5967 Joe H. Walker, Judge

No. W2005-01843-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Novem ber 17, 2005

The Peti t i o ner, Patric k Stewart, a ppeals the lowe r court’s denial of his petition for ha beas corpus r elief. The State has filed a mot ion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has fa iled to alleg e any g round that would rende r the judg ment of convic tion void. Accordingly , we affirm the tria l court’s dis mis sa l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of the 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
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYE S AND J.C. M C LIN , J J . joined.
Patrick Stewart, pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Renee W. Turner, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, the State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On April 15, 1991, P etitioner P atrick St ewa rt enter ed guilty

pleas to one c ount of first deg ree murder and one cou n t o f agg ravated ra pe. The trial court imposed c oncurr ent sentenc es of life2

imprisonment and fiftee n y ear s for the respec tive convictions. The Petitioner is cur rently confine d at West Tennessee State Penitentiary in Henning , Tenne ssee. On May 30, 20 0 5 , the Petitioner filed a pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus relief in the L auder dale County

Circuit Court. As gr ounds for issuanc e of the writ, the P etitioner cla imed that his sentence is void be ca u s e t he trial c ourt failed to c omply with the Rule 11, Tennesse e Rules of Criminal Procedure . Thus, he asse rts the trial court w as “not in posse ssion to ac cept a g uiltyplea fr om a defend ant wi thout

fi rs t c omp lying wi th the la w h ims e lf, w hic h r e mov e s h is j urisd ic tio n to hear the plea, and makes a ny

subsequent sente nce illeg al and void.” The trial court c onsidered the pe tit iona nd , by or de r en te re d J un e 30 , 200 5, de nie d re lie f. I n its ord e r de nying iss ua nc e of the writ, the trial court noted that t h e P et i t i o n er ha d failed to attach a c opy of the judg ment to his petiti on. The c ourt furthe r found that the Petitioner’ s sentence s had not expired and that the “Criminal Court has jurisdiction or authority to sentence a def

endant to the se ntence he re ceive d.” The trial court
c on c lud e d that “ [h]a

be a s c or pu s re lie f wa s no t app ro pria te .” Th e tria l c ou rt fu rthe r d e te rm ine d th a t, if the petition wa s considere d as one seeking post-conviction relief , the pet i t i o n wa s time-barr ed. A notice of

appea l document was timely filed on Jul y

29, 2005.
T h e S t at e h as filed a

motion requesting that this Court affirm the lower court’s de nial of habea s c o rp u s r e li e f

p u r s u a n t t o Ru le 2 0 , Ru le s o f th e T e n n e s s e e Co u r t o f

Crim in a l A p p e a ls

. As basis for its motion, the State asserts that the Petiti oner f ailed to state a

colora ble claim for

habea s corpus r elief. A dditionally , the State contends that the Petitioner failed to complywith the proce dural re quirements for habea s corpus relief. The Petitioner has filed a response in oppositi on to the State’s motion. I n his r esponse, the Petitioner attac hes copie s of his judgme nts of conviction.
We initi ally note, as properly arg ued by the State, that the Petitioner failed to attach copie s of the judg ments of conviction to his petition for habe as cor pu s re l i ef fi led in the trial court. See T.C.A. § 29-21-107( b)(2) . The proc edura l require ments for ha beas c orpus re lief ar e mandatory and must be scrupulously

followed. Arc he r v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993) . An application for the issuanc e of the writ of habe as corpus may be summarily

dismiss ed for

the fa ilure to attac h the judg ment forms. T.C.A. § 29-21- 107(b)( 2). The Petitioner’s attempt to r ectify the def iciency in his ini tial application comes too late

. The State is c orre ct that summary dismiss al was a ppropriate based solely

on the Petitioner’s failure to attach c opies of the judgme nt f orms. Notwithstanding this fa ct and the f act that the trial
c ou rt me nti on e d th is o mis sio n inits fi nd ing s, the tr ia l cou rt dis mis se d th e pe tit ionfo r f a ili ng to s ta te a cog nizable claim for ha beas c orpus re lief. This Court, being appel l at e o n l y , is bound by the decision of the h ab ea s court. Thus, the only question curr ently

befor e this Court is whether the
re c or d s up po rt s th e low e r c ou rt ' s d ism iss a l.
I n th is s ta te , h abe a s cor

pu s re lie f onl y a dd re sse s det e nti on s th a t r e su lt f ro m vo id j ud g me nts or expired sentenc es. Se e Arc he r, 851 S.W .2d at 164. A judgment is void “only when ‘ [i ]t appea

rs upon the fa ce of

the judg ment or t he record of the proceeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed’ that a c on vi cti ng c ou rt

wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n o r a uth ority to s e nte nc e a

de fe nd a nt, or

that a3

defe ndant’s sentenc e of imprisonment or other re straint has expired.” Hickm an v. State, 153 S.W .3d 1 6 , 2 0 (T en n
. 2 0 0 4 ) ( 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 ponderance of

the evidenc e. Passarella 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, whe re the alleg ations in a petition for writ of ha beas c orpus do not demonstrate that the judg ment is void, a trial court may

corr ectly dismiss the petition without a hearing. Mc Lan ey v . B e ll, 5 9 S. W.3d 90, 93 (T e nn . 2 00 1) (c iti ng T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 9 ( 20 00 ); se e , e .g ., Arc he r, 851 S.W .2d at 164 (pa renthe tical omi tte d) ). I n th e pr e se nt ca se , the Pe tit ion e r doe s n ot c on te ndthat hi s se nte nc e s h a ve e xpir e d, thu s, he is only entitled to relief if

his judgments ar e void.
The trial c ourt found that the pet i t i o n fa i l ed to alleg e any g round demonstrating that the judgme nt was void. We ag ree ; his claim that the trial court failed to c omply with Rule 11, Te nnessee Rules of Criminal Procedure is an all ega t i on that would rende r a c onviction voidable, not void. Ac c or d A rc he r, 851 S.W .2d at 163. Upon our r eview of the re cord in this case , we c onclude that the trial court pr operly

determined that the Petitioner 's cl aim is not cog nizable in a habea s corpus p ro ce ed i n g. Section 40-30-105, Te nnessee Code Annotated, instruc ts trial courts to treat habea s petitions as post-convic tion pe t i t i o n s "w hen the r elief and proce dure authorized by [t he Post-Conviction Procedur e Ac t] appea

r ade quate a nd appropriate." The trial c ourt t re at ed t h e petition as both an application for

habea s corpus r el i ef an d as a pe tition for post-conviction relief . Treating the
app lic a tio n a s o ne fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f, the tria l c ou rt fo un d th e app licatio n ti me -b arr e d a s it was filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102( a) (petition must be filed within one y ear

of the date of the final action of hig hest court to which a ppeal take n or one y ear of date on which judg ment became final if no a ppeal take n). Additionally , no g round exists as an exception to the statute of limitations. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102( b). According ly , we c onclude that the trial court did not err in dismissi ng the petition as one see king post-c onviction relief.

We c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y de nie d h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f a s the pe tit ionfaile d to
a lle g e a g ro un d th a t w ou ld r e nd e r the jud g me nts vo id. Ad dit ion a lly , th e tria l co urt pr op e rl y determined that the petition wa s time-barr ed if treated as a petition f or post-convicti o n re l ief. Ac c or din g ly , it is or de re d th a t th e State ' s mo tio n is g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is
a ff ir me d ina c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________



### ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE