### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove mb er 18, 200 8
WALT ER HENNI NG v. HOWA RD CA RLT ON, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Cr iminal Cou rt f or Johnson County No. 5119 Robert

Cupp , Judge

No. E2007-01951-CC A-R3- HC - Filed February 9, 2009

The Petitioner pled guilty in Sull ivan County , Tenne ssee, to one count of robber y and one count of evadingarr est. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to five y ear s for his robbe ry conviction and eleve n months and twenty -nine da y s for his eva din g arr est conviction, with the sentenc es to be
se rv e d c on c ur

re ntl y . T he Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a pe tit ion fo r h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f, c la imi ngthat hi s jud g me nts we re vo id be c a us e ne ith e r jud g me nt or de re d his se nte nc e s to be se rv e d co ns e c uti ve ly to his unserved se ntence in Maryland. The ha beas c ourt 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 ha beas c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cr iminal Cou rt A ffirm ed
R OBER T W. W EDEMEYER , J., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which T H O M A S T. W OOD ALL and J A M ES C UR W OOD W I TT , J R ., JJ., joined.
Walter Henning, Pro se, Mountain City, Tennesse e. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Mic hael E. Moor e, Solicitor Gene ral; Lac y Wilber, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
I. Facts and Proc edural History
The Petitioner’s pr e- s en t en ce r eport set f orth the following summary of the c onduct
un de rl yinghis c onvic tio ns :
On Augus t 2 6, 2005, office rs wer e dispatche d to the repor t of a robbe ry

at the A p p a l a c h i anC o m m u n i t y F e d e r a l C r e d i tU n i o n , . . . K i n g s p o r t , S u l l i v anC o u n t y, Tenn es s ee . . . . Two white/males, one beinglater ide ntified as the de fenda nt, . . . wer e stopped[] afte r a short chase , and identified by employ ees at the cre dit union as2

being the ones c ommitt ing the robber y . These subje cts en t ered the bank, pa ssed a note demanding the money , and fled with that money ; their ac tions putt ing the teller in f ear
. [The D efe ndant] was arr ested a nd interviewe d at the justice c enter . He wa s a dv ise d o f h is M ir and a

ri g hts , w hic h h e wa ive d, and he c on fe sse d to c omm itt ingthi s robber y
.

I n 2 00 6, the Pe tit ion e r p le d guil ty to ro bb e ry and e va din g arr e st, and the tr ia l court se nte nc e d h im to f ive y e ars fo r t

he ro bb e ry

c on vic tio n a

nd e le ve n mo nth s, tw e nty -n ine da y s fo r the e va din g arr e st conviction, to be ser

ved conc urre ntly

.

Th e Pe tit ion e r file d a

pe tit ion fo r h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f c la imi ngthat bo th o f h is j ud g me nts wer e void bec ause “ [t ]he Sul livan County Circuit Court was requir ed to run the char g es conse cutive to the char g es in the Mar y land jurisdiction but did not.” A copy of t h e T en n essee judgme nts of conviction acc ompanied the Petitioner’s petition. T he P etitioner di d not sign and verify the petition by aff idavit. Also, the Petitioner did not state that the illegality of his r estrain t h ad n o t been adjudicate d in a prior proce eding. Finally, he did not state whether the petition was his first petition for ha beas c orpus re lie f. The State moved to dismi ss the Petitioner’s reque st for habe as cor pus relief , and the Petitioner filed a motion opposi ng the State’s motio n t o which he attached se vera l additional documents desc ribed be low.
Although the Ten n es see judg ments entere d ag ainst the Petitioner for r obbery and eva ding
arr est mention no other existi ng sentenc es, the rec o rd co n t ains a sca nned copy

of a Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction document noti fying the Petitioner that “ef fec tive 6/20/2006, a [Mary land] detainer was plac ed” f

or the off ense of “F TA on VOP” agai n s t the Petitioner. The doc ument ide nti fi e d th e pr e se nt s tatus of the c ha rg e a s o f Augus t 3, 20 06 , a s “ lif te d. ” Th e Pe tit ion e r a lso attache d the notice of

enhanc ements filed by

the State befor e the Petitioner pled g uilty

. The notice
rec ites that the Petitioner’s offe nse was committed while he was on rele ase from th e M ary land Depa rtment of Probation and Par ole.

The ha beas c ourt issued a written order dismiss ing the Petitioner’s re quest for ha beas c orpus relief . The Petitioner now a

ppeals that judg ment.

II. Ana lys is

The Petitioner conte nds his Sullivan County , Tenne ssee, se ntence s for robbe ry and eva ding
arr est are void be cause the Tenne ssee judgme nts f ail to or der that his Te nnessee sentenc es be se rved
co n s ec u t i v el y

t o h i s M ary l an d

s en t en ce
. Fu rt h er , ci t i n g Ba x te r v . R os e , 523 S.W .2d 930, 939 (Tenn. 1979), he a sserts that any

proce dural de ficienc ies of his petition for habe as corpus r elief should be overlooke d beca

use, as the Petitioner f

iled pr o s e , his petition shoul d be construe d liberally . The3

State responds fir st t h at t h e h ab eas c ourt proper ly dismiss ed the pe tition because of its numerous proce dural de ficienc ies. The State then a sserts t hat, eve n if the Petitioner had c omplied proce durally , the fa ilure, in either of the Petitioner’s Tenne ssee judg ments, to refe renc e the manne r of ser vice of his Tennessee sentenc es with respe ct t o h i s Maryland sentenc e does not c ause the Tenne ssee judg ments to be fac ially void. We ag ree with the State.

Whether habe as cor

pus relief should be g rante d is a question of law. Ed war ds v . S tate , No. M2 00 6- 01 04 3- SC- R11 -H C, - - S .W. 3d -- , 2 00 8 WL 42 48 71 4, a t *2 (T e nn
. Se pt. 18 , 20 08 ). Thus , w e a p p l y de novo revie w and a ffor d no presumption of cor rec tness to the finding s and conc lusions of the c ourt below. Su mm e rs v . S tate , 2 12 S.W. 3d 25 1, 25 5 (T e nn . 2 00 7) ; Hoga n v . M ill s , 168 S.W .3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)

.

Article I , section 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution guarante es the right to see k habea s corpus relief

. Se e Fa ulk

ne r v . S tat e , 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007). The Te nnessee statute, howeve r, governs the exer cise of this c onstitut ional guara ntee. See T.C.A. § 29-21-101 (2006). Alt hough the statute does not l imit the number of reque sts for habe as cor

pus relief a petitioner ma y make, it does narr owly limit the grounds upon which a c ourt may gra nt habea s corpus re lief. Tay lor v . S tat e , 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . The pe titioner must demonstrate by a pr eponder ance of the e vidence that “the se ntence is void or that confineme nt is il legal.” Wy att v . S tat e , 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). Consequently, a petitioner must ba se his r equest for habea s corpus relief upon the following ve ry n arr o w g r o u n d s : ( 1 ) a c la im th a t, b e c a u s e th e c o n v ic ti n g c o u r t w a s w ith o u t ju r is d ic tion or a uth or ity to sent e nc e the pe tit ion e r, the c on vic tin g c ou rt ’s jud gme nt i s f a c ia lly inv a lida nd , th us , void; o r (2 ) a cla im that the petitioner’s sentenc e has e xpired. Stephenson v . Carlton , 28 S.W.3d 91 0, 91 1 (Ten n. 20 00 ); Ar c he r v . S tat e , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) . Stated differ ently, a petitioner must demonstrate the judgment is “void” and not merely “ voidable.” Sm ith v . Le wis , 202 S.W .3 d 1 24 , 1 27 (T e nn . 2 00 6)

. “ An ill e ga l sen te nc e , one wh os e imp os iti on dir e c tly c on tr a ve ne s a statute, is c onsidered void and may be set aside at any time.” May v . Carlton , 245 S.W.3d 340, 344 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Sta te v . B ur k ha rd , 56 6 S.W .2 d 87 1, 87 3 (T e nn
. 19 78 ). In c on tr a st, a vo ida ble judgment is “one that is facia lly valid and require s the introduction of proof beyond the f

ace of the rec ord or judgment to estab l i s h i t s validity.” Taylor , 9 55 S.W . 2 d at 83 ; se e Sta te v . R ic hie , 20 S.W.3d 624, 633 (Tenn. 2000)

.

A h abe a s c ou rt

is n ot r e qu ir e d, a s a

ma tte r o f l a w, to g rant the writ o r c on du c t a n in qu ir y in to the allegations contained in the petition. See T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 9. If the pe tit ion fails on its fa c e to state a c ognizable c laim, it may be summarily dismi ssed by the trial c ourt. Se e Sta te e x . re l. B y rd v. Bomar , 381 S.W.2d 280, 283 (1964); T.C.A. § 29-21- 109. “If from the showing of the petitioner, the plaintiff would not be e ntitled to any relief, the writ may be r efuse d.” T.C.A. § 29-21- 109.
Further, a pe tition for the writ of habe as cor pus must c omply with sever al strict proce dural re qu ir e me nts : (a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, signed either by the party for4

whose be nefit it is intended, or some per son on the petitioner's beha lf, and ve rified by a ff ida vit

. (b) The petition shall state: (1) That the person in whose behalf the writ i s sought, is il legally re strained of lib e rt y, a nd the pe rs on by wh om an d pla c e wh e re re str a ine d, me nti on ing the na me of such pe rso n , if known, and, if unknow n, describing the person with as much particula rity as pra cticable ; (2) The cause or pre tense of suc h restra int a ccor ding to the be st information of the a pplicant, and i f i t b e by virtue of any lega l proce ss, a copy ther eof sha ll be annexe d, or a satisfactory r eason give n for its absenc e; (3) That the legality of the re straint has not alre ady b ee n adjudged upon a prior proc eeding of

the same char acte r, to the best of the a pplicant's knowledge and belief; a nd (4) That it is first applica tion for the writ, or, if a pre vious ap p l i ca tion has been ma de, a c opy of the pe tition and procee dings thereon sha ll be p ro d uced, or satisfac tory rea sons be given for the fa ilure so to do.

T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 7 (2 00 6)

. A ha be a s c ou rt ma y dis mis s a pe tit ion fo r h abe a s c or pu s r e lie f tha t f

a ils to comply with the above statutory pr ocedur al re quirements. Hi c k ma n v . S tat e , 153 S.W.3d 16, 21 (Tenn. 2004)

. In the c ase u n d er submis sion, the Petiti oner f ailed to adhe re to seve ral mandatory require ments for ha

beas c orpus petitions. The Petitioner failed to: (1) sign and verify the petition by aff idavit; (2) state that the illega lity of his restraint had not been adjudicated in a prior pr ocee ding; and (3) state whe ther the pe tition was his first such petition for habea s corpus relief. T.C.A. § 29-21- 107 (a) , (b)( 3), and (b)( 4). These rea sons a lone are sufficie nt to just ify the habe as court’s dismiss al of the pe tition.
No tw ith sta nd ing the pe tit ion ’s pr oc e du ra l de fi c ie nc ie s, the pe tit ion fails to s ta te a c og niz able claim for ha

beas c orpus re l i ef. The Petitioner claims his judgments are void be cause they do not order his Te nnessee sentenc es to be serve d consec utively to his unserved Maryland sentenc e. The State suggests that the Petitioner is relying on Tenne ssee Rul e of Criminal Procedur e 32(c )(2) (B), wh ic h r e qu ir e s:
If, a s the result of c onviction in another state or in fe d er al co urt, the def

endant ha s any additional sente nce or portion there of t o serve , the court shall impose a sentenc e that is consecutive to a ny such unserved sentence unless the court dete rmines in the5

exer cise of its discretion that good cause exists to run the sentenc es conc urre ntly and e xp lic itl y s o o rd e rs
.

The Petitioner’s Te nnessee judgments do not order his sentenc es t o be ser ved either concur rently or c onsecutively to h i s u n s erve d Maryland se ntence . In fa ct, the judgments do not mention or ref

er to the unse rved Ma

ryland sente nce. As s u ch, we conclude that the Petitioner’s sentenc e does not “directly contravene ” R ule 32(c)(2)( B). There fore , the P etitioner’s sentence is not illegal and may not be set aside as void. See M ay , 245 S.W.3d at 344; se e als o Smi th , 202 S.W.3d at 127. Because the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that e ither his sentenc e or judgment is void, we c onclude that the ha

beas c ourt properly dismi ssed his petitioner for ha beas c orpus re lief.
III. Conclusi on
After a thorough revie w of the r ecor d and re levant authorities, we conc lude the habe as court proper ly dismi ssed the Petitioner’s pe tition for h abea s corpus re lief. Ac cordingly, we aff irm the judgment of the habe as court.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE