1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JAM ES LE E P ERR Y, PR O SE v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Wayne County No. 14005 Robert

Hollow ay, Judge

No. M2003- 01939-CCA -R3-HC - October19, 2004

The Petitioner, J ames L ee Perry
, appea ls the t rial court's dismi ssal of hi s petition for habe as cor pus relief . The State ha s filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial c ourt' s denial of r elief
pu rsua nt t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f t he Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls. Th e Pe tit ion e r f a ils to a sse rt

a cog nizable claim for whic h habea s corpus re lief may b e gra nted. Acc ording ly , the State' s motion is gr anted a nd the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

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

RO B ERT W. WE DE ME YE R, J., de liv e re d the op ini on of the c ou rt , in wh ic h D AV I D H . WE L L ES, and JER RY L . SMI TH, J.J ., joined.

J ames L ee Per

ry , pro se.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; El iza be th B . M a rn e y , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

The pe titioner was convic ted of fir st de g ree murder a nd ag g rava ted kidnapping , for whic h he re ceive d a life sentenc e plus f orty y ear s. Petiti oner’ s conviction and sente nce w ere aff irmed by this c ourt on direc t appea l. State v. J ames L ee Per ry , No. 01-C-9003-CR-00057, 1991 WL 40952 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. a t N a sh vil le Ma r. 28 , 1 99 1) . Pe tit ion e r s ub se qu e nt ly fi le d a pe tit ion fo r p os tconviction re lief, alleg ing ine ffe ctive assistance of counsel, whic h was de nied by the trial cour t and aff irmed by this court on appea l. Perry v. State, No. 01C01-9209-CR-00283, 1993 WL 212041 (Tenn. Crim. App. a t Nashville J une 17, 1993). I n this a ppeal, petitioner is challeng ing the dismiss al of his habea s corpus pe tition.2

Pe tit ioner con tend s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n to c on vic t or se nte nc e him beca use t he S tate withheld an im munity ag ree ment with the petitioner’s a ccomplice , which re sulted in t he de nia l of a fai r tr ial

. Th e ha be a s c or pu s c ou rt dis mis se d th e pe tit ion fi nd ing tha t th e c la im
upon which petitioner bases his ha beas corpus petition would lead to a voidable, rathe r than a void, conviction.

A w ri t o f h ab ea s corpus may be g rante d only

when the pe titioner has established lac k of jur isd ic tio n f

or the or de r o f co nf

ine me nt o r t ha t he is o the rw ise e nti tle d to imm e dia te re le a se be c a us e of t he ex piration of hi s sentenc e. S ee Ussery v. Aver y , 22 2 T e nn . 5 0, 43 2 S. W.2 d 6 56 (1 96 8) ; Sta te

e x re l. Wa de v. No rv e ll

, 1 Te nn . Crim . App . 447 , 443 S.W. 2d 83 9 (19 69 ). Ha be a s cor pu s r e lie f i s available in this st ate only when it appe ars on the fa ce o f t he judg ment or the re cord tha t the trial
court wa s without jurisdi ction to convict or s en t en ce t h e def endant or that the sentenc e of imp ri so nme nt ha s othe rw ise e xpir e d. Ar c he r v . St a te
, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pott s v. Sta te
, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . Unlike the post-convic tion petitio n , t h e purpose of the ha be a s c or pu s pet iti on is t o c on te st a vo id, no t me re ly

vo ida ble , ju dg me nt. Sta te e x re l. N e ws ome v. Hende rson , 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). A petitioner c annot collater ally attack

a fa c ia lly va lid c on vic tio n in a

ha be a s c or pu s p ro c e e din g . Po tts v. Sta te
, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992); State ex rel. Holbrook v. B omar , 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (1963).

The Petitioner has f

ailed to set for th any alleg ations that would indicate that the tr ial court lacke d jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e him or that he is unlawf ully “re strained” for a

sentenc e that ha s e xpir e d. Mo re ov e r, thi s is pe tit ion e r’ s th ir d a tte mpt to r a ise the is su e of

wh e the r t he re wa s a “dea l” struck be tween the S t at e an d petitioner’s a ccomplice in exchang e for the ac complice’ s testimonyat trial. As this c ourt noted in petitioner’s post-c onviction appea l, “the issue conc erning

a ny pu rp or te d ‘ de a l’ be tw e e n the [ac c omp lic e ] an d th e pr os e c uti on ha d b e e n p re vio us ly lit ig a te d in the tr ia l c ou rt

a nd on a pp e a l a nd tha t th e e vid e nc e sh ow e d th a t no pr omi se s h a d be e n ma de to t his witness.” Perr y

v. State, 1993 WL

2120 4 1 at * 2

. P et i tioner’s ha beas c orpus claim must fail. Petitioner has fa iled to establish by a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e that his con v i ction is void or his term of imprisonment has expired.

F ur the r, the pe tit ion e r f

ile d a mot ion fo r a

pp oin tme nt o f counse l a nd to p ro c e e d in fo rm a pauper is in the trial court and this cour t. The trial court entere d an order deny ing c ounsel and finding that the petitioner is not indige nt. D eter minations reg arding indige ncy and appointment should be made by the trial cour t. See Tenn. R. A pp. P. 18 Acc ording ly , petitioner’s re quests on appea l are also denied.

Th e Sta te ’s mot ion is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt of the tr ia l cou 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.3 

### ___ _________________________________ ROBERT W. W EDEMEYER, JUDGE