IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 15, 2014

LUIS RODRIGUEZ v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2008-A-415 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge

No. M2013-01723-CCA-R3-HC - Filed February 13, 2014

The Petitioner, Luis Rodriguez, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary

dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus regarding his 2008 conviction for

especially aggravated robbery, for which he is serving a twenty-five-year sentence. The

Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition when his guilty plea

was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL

and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined.

Luis A. Rodriguez, Nashville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; John H. Bledsoe, Senior Counsel;

Victor S. (Torry)Johnson, III, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

On August 7, 2008, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to especially aggravated robbery.

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years as a violent

offender. According to the State’s recitation of the facts at the guilty plea hearing,

[O]n November the 7th, 2007, police responded to a robbery at 3225

Gallatin Pike at the La Tropicana (phonetic) Market. And police were called

as a result of the victim . . . [flagging] down officers with severe cuts to her

throat and face[. She] was then transported to Vanderbilt in critical condition.

Investigation revealed that the defendant had entered that store and robbed the
victim of the contents of the register and had caused the injuries to her face

and throat by use of a knife.

And on November 10th of 2007 the defendant turned himself in and

told the officer that he wanted to talk about the robbery on Gallatin Pike

because he was the one who did it.

In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Petitioner contended that his guilty plea

was unknowingly and involuntarily entered because he was not fully aware of the

consequences of the plea, the plea was coerced, and the plea was not entered in conformity

with Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 11. He argued that because he “function[ed] at a

low intelligence level,” he did not comprehend the plea process and that the trial court did

not inquire on the record about his comprehension. He also contended that the trial court

failed to inform him of the right against self-incrimination, failed to require a factual basis

for his plea, and failed to ensure the translator was qualified and sworn pursuant to

Tennessee Rules of Evidence 604 and 702.

In denying the petition for habeas corpus relief, the trial court found that the Petitioner

did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction or assert that his sentence had expired but that his

claims related to his understanding of his plea agreement and to the effective assistance of

counsel. The court found that the Petitioner alleged his sentence was “void or voidable” and

alternatively treated the petition as one for post-conviction relief.

In denying post-conviction relief, the trial court found that the Petitioner did not

appeal his conviction and that it became final thirty days after he pleaded guilty. The court

noted that almost five years had passed since the conviction became final and found that none

of the Petitioner’s claims qualified as exceptionsto the post-conviction statute of limitations.

The court dismissed the petition because it was filed outside the statute of limitations.

On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court failed to apply plain error in

dismissing his habeas corpus petition without a hearing and that the court denied him due

process and lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea when the interpreter was not properly

sworn or qualified. The State contends that the court properly dismissed the petition. We

conclude that the trial court properly denied relief.

The determination of whether habeas corpus relief should be granted is a question of

law that is reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Livingston, 197

S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tenn. 2006); Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000). In

Tennessee, habeas corpus relief is available only when it appears on the face of the judgment

or the record that the trial court was without jurisdiction to convict or sentence the defendant

-2-
or that the sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). The

purpose of the habeas corpus petition is to contest a void, not merely a voidable, judgment.

Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999); State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 424

S.W.2d 186, 189 (Tenn. 1968).

A void, as opposed to a voidable, judgment is “one that is facially invalid because the

court did not have the statutory authority to render such judgment.” Summers v. State, 212

S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tenn. 2007). A voidable judgment “is one that is facially valid and

requires proof beyond the face of the record or judgment to establish its invalidity.” Id. The

burden is on the petitioner to establish that the judgment is void or that the sentence has

expired. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291-92 (Tenn. 1964).

Regarding the Petitioner’s argument that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition

without a hearing, a trial court may dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a

hearing and without appointing a lawyer when the petition does not state a cognizable claim

for relief. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004); State ex rel. Edmondson v.

Henderson, 421 S.W.2d 635, 636-37 (Tenn. 1967); see T.C.A. § 29-21-109 (2010). His

claims that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary, if proven, would render the

challenged judgment voidable rather than void and do not present cognizable claims for

habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner has not established that he is entitled to a writ of habeas

corpus.

The Petitioner’s reply brief takes issue with the State’s insisting upon presenting the

petition as one for post-conviction relief. After determining habeas corpus relief was not

cognizable, the trial court alternatively considered the petition as one for post-conviction

relief. Consideration of the petition as one for post-conviction relief as a possible means to

grant relief was not prejudicial to the Petitioner. The petition had no merit for habeas corpus

relief and essentially alleged grounds that are addressed in a post-conviction petition.

Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-30-102(a) (2012) provides that a person must

petition for post-conviction relief within one year of the date on which the judgment became

final. The statute emphasizes that “[t]ime is of the essence of the right to file a petition for

post-conviction relief . . . , and the one-year limitations period is an element of the right to

file such an action and is a condition upon its exercise.” Id. In the present case, the petition

was filed on April 15, 2013, over four years after the Petitioner pleaded guilty and well

beyond the one-year limitations period. None of the limited exceptionsto the post-conviction

statute of limitations apply. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102(b) (2012). We conclude that the trial

court properly determined that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus or postconviction relief.

-3-
In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

___________________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, PRESIDING JUDGE

-4-