1



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

AT JAC KSON

COREY J OHNS ON, P RO 

### S E 

### v. TO NY PARKER, W ARDEN Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 03-CR-8483 R. LeeMoore , Judge

No. W2003-02375-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Janu ary 26, 2004

The Petitioner, Corey

J ohnson, appea ls the trial court' s denial of his petition for ha beas c orpus relief . The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affir m the trial court' s denial of re lie f p ur su ant t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f t he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to alleg e any g round that would re nder the judgme nt of conviction void. Acc ording ly , we grant the State ' s mo tio n a

nd a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he low e r c ourt
. 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 J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined. Corey J ohnson, pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; J ohn H. B ledsoe, I I I , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee. M EM OR

AN DU MOP IN ION

On Marc h 1 3, 20 03 , Pe tit ion e r e nte re d a guil ty ple a to o ne c ount o f atte mpt

to c omm it murder in the f

irst degree and one c ount of second- degree murder. F or these c onvictions, he rec eived a

n eff ective se ntence of thirty -five year s. On Marc h 13, 2003, Petitioner filed an application for

writ of habe as cor

pus relief , alleg ing that the judgme nts of conviction ar e void on their fa ce be cause the convictingcourt fa iled to “che ck off the box on t he judgment forms that he2

was found ‘ guilty .’” O n September 17, 2003, the trial court de nied habe as cor pus relief , finding that any omission on t he judgment form mer ely rende rs the judgments voidable, not void. A writ of ha

beas c orpus may

be grante d only

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

or the or de r o f c on fi ne me nt o r t hat he is o the rw ise e nti tle d to imm e diate re le a se beca use of the e x piration of his sentenc e. See U ssery v . Ave ry, 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656 (1 96 8) ; Sta tee

xre l. W ad ev . No rv e ll, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 447, 443 S.W.2d 839 (1969). Habe as corpus r elief is ava ilable in this state only when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judgment or the rec ord that the trial c ourt was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the de fenda nt or that the sentenc e of imprisonment has other wise expired. Archer v . State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 19 93 ); Potts v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . Unlike the post-convic tion petition, t he purpose of

the habe as cor

pus petition is t o contest a void, not mere ly voidable, judgment. Sta te ex re l. Newsome v. He nderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). A petitioner c annot collater ally

attack a fac ially valid conviction in a habe as cor pus proce eding

. Potts v. State, 833 S.W. 2d 60 , 6 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) ; Sta tee xre l. H olb ro ok v . B om ar , 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (1963). Rule 32(e) , Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure, pr ovides that, “A judgment of conviction shall set forth the ple a, the ve rdict or f indings, a nd the adjudication and sentenc e. . . . The judgment shall be sig ned by the judg e and e ntere d by the cler k.” The judgme nt form in the ins tant c a se c omp lie d w iththe se re qu ir e me nts . A dd iti on a lly , th e jud g me nt f or ms c omp lie d w ith the statutory

require ments of sec tion 40-35-209(e )(1- 19), Tenne ssee Code Annotated. The fac t that the judg ment form fa iled to refle ct that the Petitioner wa s “guilty ” is not fatal to the jud g me nt. Ind e e d, the fa c t th at “ ple a de d guil ty” wa s ma rk e d b y the tr ia l c ourt , n e c e ssa

ri ly implies that the Petit ioner wa s found guilty . Acc ording ly , we c annot conc lude that this technica l omi ssi on is s uf fi c ie nt t o r e nd e r a

jud g me nt o f c onvic tio n v oid . Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to se t f

or th any alleg ation that would indicate that the trial court lac ked jurisdiction to convict or sente nce or that his sentence had expired.
Acc ording ly , it is ORDERED that the St ate’ s motion i s GRANTED. The judgme nt of the trial court is AF FIRMED in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, J UDGE