### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 26 , 200 8

RA YM OND DA VID WRIGHT v. HO WAR D C ARLTON , Ward en
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County

No. 5116 Robert

E. Cup p, Jud ge

No. E2007-02653-CC A-R3- HC - F iled April 28, 2008

T h e P et i t i o n er , R ay

m o n d Da v i d W ri gh t , p l edgu i l t y t o s ec o n d

d egr ee m u rd er

i n1 9 9 3 i nex ch an ge for a fifty y ear sentenc e as a Rang e I I Ioffe nder. H e filed a petition for habe as cor

pus relief claiming h i s s e n t e n c e w a s i l l e g a l b e c a u s e , h a d h e b e e nt r i e d

an d c o n v i c t e d , h e w o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d o n l y a Rang e Iof

fe nd e r. Thus , h e c la ims his fi ft y -ye ar s e nte nc e is i lle g a l. T he Pe tit io ner fur the r a sse rt s second de g ree murder is not a le sser include d offe nse of first deg ree felony murder, a

nd, there fore , the trial cour

t had no jurisdiction to sentence him. The habea s court dismissed the petition without a hea ring . After

a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d and applica ble law, we aff

irm the judg ment of the habea s court. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined. Ray mond David Wright, Mountain City , Tenne ssee, pr o se.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l E. Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; D a vid H. Findley , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Anthony

W. Clark, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , the State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION

I. F acts
Acc ord i n g t o the State’s stateme nt of evidenc e at the guilty plea he aring , the Petitioner enter ed a house , killed a woman, and st ole a VCR and larg e radio. He wa s char g ed with first deg ree preme ditated murder

and first de g ree felony

murder. He pled g uilty to second deg ree murder on the char g e of f

elony murder in e x chang e for

the first deg ree preme ditated murder char g e beingdropped.2

As a pa rt of the a g ree ment, the Petitioner rec eived a fifty -y ear sentenc e as a R ang e I I I offe nder. The trial court noted that, had the Petitioner g one to t rial and be en convic ted of a crime, he would have been se ntence d as a Rang e I o ff en d er
. T he Petitioner ac knowledg ed this, but asserted his plea ag ree ment was in his best interest be cause he could b e sente nced to life in prison if the jury convicted him of f

irst deg ree murder.

I n 2007, the Petitioner filed a pe tition for ha beas corpus r elief a sserting two claims: (1) that his fifty y ear sentenc e as a Rang e I I I offe nder is illeg al; and (2) that he wa s convicted of a cha rg e, second de g ree murder, of which no information or indictment w as filed. The State filed a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e h a

b e a s c o r p u s p e t i t i o n , w h i c h w a s g r an t e d w i t h o u ta h e ar i n g b y t h e h a b e a s c o u rt

. In its or de r, the c ourt

fo un d th a t th e Pe tit ion e r’ s a lle g a tio ns , e ve n if tr ue , did no t re nd e r h is j ud g me nts ill e g a l. It is fr om t

his jud g me nt t

hat th e Pe tit ion e r n owa

pp e a ls.

II. Ana lys is
Article I , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constituti on g uara ntees the right to seek ha

beas c orpus relief

. Se e Fa ulk

ne r v . S tate , 226 S.W .3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007). Although the rig ht is gua rante ed in the Tenne ssee Constitution, t he rig ht is g overne d by statute. T.C.A. § 29-21-101 ( 2006) et seq

. Th e de te rm in a t i o no f

w h e t h e r h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f s h o u l d b e g r an t e d

i s a qu e s t i o no f

l aw an d is
acc ording ly

g iven de novo r eview. Sm ith v . Le wis , 2 02 S.W. 3d 12 4, 12 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 6) ; Ha rt v . S tate , 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)

. Although there is no statutory limit preve nting a

habea s corpus petition, the g rounds upon which relief can be g rante d are very narr ow. Tay lor

v . S tate , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn

. 1999). I t is the burden of the petitioner to demonstrate by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that “the sentenc e is void or that the conf inement is illega l.” W

y att v . S tate , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000) . I n other wor ds, the very narr ow g rounds upon which a habea s corpus pe tition can be ba se d a

re a s f oll ow s: ( 1) a

c la im the re wa s a

vo id jud g me nt whic h w a s f a c ia lly inv a lid be c a us e the c on vic tin g c ourt

wa s w ith ou t juri sd ic tio n o r a uth or ity to se nte nc e the de fe nd ant; or (2 ) a c la im the def endant’ s sentence has expired. Stephenson v . Carlton , 2 8 S

. W

. 3 d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) ; Ar c he r v . S

tate , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) . “An illeg al sentenc e, one whose imp osition direc tly contravenes a statute, is c onsidered void a nd may be set aside at any time.” May v . Carlton ,

— S

. W

. 3 d

— , 2 0 0 8 W L 1 6 0 6 9 5 , at * 3 (T en n
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Sta te v . B ur k ha rd , 566 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978) ). In contra st, a voidable judg ment is “one t h at i s fa cially valid and re quires the introduction of proof bey ond the face of the record or judgme nt to establish its invalidity .” Taylor , 99 5 S. W.2 d at 83 ; se e Sta te v . R ic hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 633 (Tenn. 2000)

. The Petitioner’s f

irst alleg ation, that he wa s sentenc ed illega lly , is not supported by the law. The Def endant ag ree d to a fifty -y ear sentenc e as a Rang e I I Ioffe nder, a nd that sentenc e is within the
acc eptable ba

rg aining rang e. Pursuant to Ho ov e r v . S tate , “a ple a -b arg a ine d s e nte nc e may le g a lly exceed the max imum available in the off ender ra n ge so longas the sente nce doe s not ex cee d the maxi mum punishm ent authoriz ed for the pl ea offense .” 215 S.W .3d 776, 780 (Tenn. 2007) . The conviction, sec ond deg ree murder, ha d a total ra ng e of f ifteen to sixt y

y ear s. See T.C.A. § 39-13-210 (c) (1990) ( second de g ree murder is a Class A felony ); T.C.A. § 40-35-101 ( 1990) (total ra ng e for
a Cla ss Afe lony

is 1 3. 5 to 60 y e ars ). Of fend er c la ssi fi c a tio n a

nd se nte nc e ra

ng e are le g iti mate3

barg aining tools. Se e Hi c k s v . S tate , 945 S.W .2d 706, 709 (T en n
. 1 9 9 7 ). T he Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this issue.
The Peti ti o n e r ’ s s e c o n d a ll e g a ti o n , th a t h e p le d g u il ty to a c h ar g e o n w h ic h h e w a s not indicted bec ause se cond deg ree murder is not a le sser included offe nse of first deg ree felony murder, is simi larly

not suppor t ed b y the law. Pursuant to Sta te v . E ly , second de g ree murder is a lesser inc lud e d off

e ns e of fe lony mur de r. 48 S.W. 3d

71 0, 72 1- 22 (T e nn . 2 00 1) ; accord State v . Locke , 90 S.W .3d 663, 669 (Tenn. 2002) . The Petitioner has f ailed to prove the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him af ter a g uilty plea to sec ond deg ree murder. T he Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this issue.
III. Conclusi on
After due consideration of the i ssues, we conclude that the t rial court did not err in deny ing the Petitioner’s petition for ha beas c orpus re lief. As such, w e af firm the judg ment of the ha beas
c ourt

.

________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE