### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

JOSEP H HOU GH v. HOWA RD CA RLT ON, WAR DEN , and the

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for John son Coun ty No. 4746 Robert

E. Cup p, Jud ge

No. E2006-00782-CC A-R3- HC - F iled March 15, 2007

Th e pe tit ion e r, Jose ph Ho ug h, app e a ls the tr ia l c ou rt ' s de ny ing his pe tit ion fo r w ri t of ha be a s c or pu s. Th e Sta te ha s f

ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ng that th is c ou rt a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt ' s o rd e r p ur su a nt t o Ru le 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The peti t i on prese nts no cog nizable claim for ha beas

c or pu s r e lie f. Ac c or din g ly , th e Sta te's mo ti on is g ra nte d a ndthe jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is aff irmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed 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

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , and D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.

J oseph Houg h, Mountain City , Tenne ssee, Pro se.

Rob e r t E

. Co o p e r , Jr

. , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d Re p o r te r ; Je n n if e r L

. B le d s o e , A s s is ta n t A ttorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

Th e pe tit ion e r a ndtw o c o- de fe nd a nts we re e a c h c on vic te d of on e c ou nt of the ft of pr op e rt y valued at over $ 1,000.00, but less than $ 10,000.00 and thre e counts of the ft of prope rty valued at $ 5 00 .0 0 o r l e ss. Th e pe tit ion e r w a s se nte nc e d a s a Ra ng e I sta nd ardof

fe nd e r t o thr e e y e ars a ndsix months in t he state pe nitentiary for the the ft over $ 1,000.00 and re ceive d concur rent sente nces of eleve n months and twenty -nine da y s in jail for the misd em ea n or thefts. I n addition, the trial court fined e ach de fenda nt $2,500.00. As to the petitioner, this court af firmed the trial court’s judg ment in a ll r espec ts. See State v. J oseph Houg h, a/k/a J ohnny
, J immy Tucker a n d M o n t yPalmer, No.03C01-9404-CR-00143 (Te nn. Crim. App., J une 13, 1995).

On Octobe r 3, 2 0 0 5
, th e p e ti ti o n e r f il e d a p r o s e p e ti ti o n f

o r w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s

. The pe tit ion e r c la ime d th a t th e re wa s a ma te ri a l va

ri a nc e be tw e e n the a lle g a tio ns ma de wi th r e sp e c t to-2-

tw o c ounts of

the ind ic tme nt a ndthe pr oo f p re se nte d a t tria l. In o ur op ini on a ff

ir min g his

c on vic tio ns , th is c ou rt

ob se rv e d:
The proof reve aled that the e lectronic equipment i n M r. Hough' s vehicle ha d been sto le n f ro m va ri ou s c hu rc he s a nda

bu sin e ss , a ll o f w hic h h a d b e e n r e c e ntl y burg larized. These included the Hillcr est Ba ptist C h u rch, All S aints Episcopal Church, Liberty

Hill United Methodist Church and the Pizz a Cottag e. Property from the B aptist Church was va lued at $ 1,200.00; prope rt y from the Episcopal Church

was va lued at about $ 150.00; prope rty from t h e M et h o dist Church was value d at about $ 200.00; and prope rty t ak en fr o m the Piz za Cott ag e wa s valued a t approximately

$ 100.00.

I d., slip op. at 3.

I n h is pe tit ion , th e pe tit ion e r a sse rt e d th a t w ith re sp e c t to the va lue of the pr op e rt y

take n in the the ft a t H ill c re st B apti st Chu rc h (c ou nt 2 ), he c ou ld h a ve be e n in dic te d f or no mor e tha n a

c la ss A, mis de me a no r the ft

of pr op e rt y va lue d a t $5 00 or

le ss. With re sp e c t to the th eft of Al l Sa int s Episcopal Church ( count 5), the petitioner asserts tha t the indictment is void. He conte nds that he

c ou ld n ot h a ve be e n p ro pe rl y c ha rg ed f or the ft be c a us e c hu rc h r e pr e se ntativ e s w e re no t a ble to identify a video c assette r ecor der listed in the indictment as c hurch pr operty

. On No v ember 18, 20 05
, the tr ia l c ou rt de nie d the pe tit ion fo r la c k of me ri t. Th e tr ia l c ou rt fo un d th a t th e ind ic tme nts
wer e constitutionally

sufficie nt and furthe r found that "the Petitioner raised the same issue on a ppeal

a ndthe Cr imi na l Co urt of Ap pe a ls f

ou nd the re wa s no merit in this a lle g a tio n. " B e fo re thi s c ou rt , the petitioner ha s pursued only his claim with respec t to count 2.

A " person imprisoned or

restra ined of [his] liberty
, under any prete nse whatsoever, .

. . may prosec ute a writ of habea s corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment .

. . ." T enn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101. A writ of habe as cor pus, howeve r, is available only when it appea rs on t he fa ce of the judg ment or the re cord tha t the convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction to conv i ct or sentenc e the pe titioner or that the sente nce of imprisonment ha s otherwise expired. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pott s v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . A trial court may summarily

dismiss a petition for writ of habeas cor pus without the appointment of a lawy er a nd without an evidentiary h ea ri n g i f there is nothing on the fa ce of the judg ment to indicate that the convictions addre ss ed t h ere in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
An alleg ation of a m at eria l varianc e betwe en the pr oof and the offe nse cha rg ed in the indictment is not one that is subj ect to habe as cor pus relief . See State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) . Moreove r, the pe titioner essentially challeng es the suff

iciency of the evidenc e of the

va lue of the e le c tr on ic e qu ipm e nt h e wa s c on vic te d o f s te a lin g fr om H ill c re st B apti st C hu rc h. Th is court re jected this same c halleng e on dire ct appe al, conc luding t h at there was “ ample, indee d

overw helming, e vidence

. . . to find the value of t he Hill cre st Ba ptist C hurch’ s property

to [ be] more than $1,0000.00.” See State v. J oseph Houg h, No. 03C01-9404-CR-00143, slip op. at 6.-3-

The pe titioner has fai l ed t o assert a claim that would entitle him to habea s corpus re lief. After full consideration of the re cord, the briefs, a nd the law g overning the issues prese nted, we a re of the op ini on that th e re c or d s up po rt s th e tr ia l c ou rt ' s a c tio n, that no e rr or of la w e xists that w ou ld require a reve rsal, and that no prec edential value would be derive d from the rende ring of an opinion.

Acc ording ly , the orde r of the trial court de ny ing ha beas corpus relief i s AFF I RMED pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als.

______________________________________

J UDGE JAMES C URWOOD WI TT, J R.