1



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

AT JAC KSON

MOR RIS N EAL DA VIS v. STEV EN DOT SON , WA RD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forHardeman County

No. 07-02-0278 Jose ph Wal ker, Judge

No. W2008-00010-C CA-R 3-HC - Filed July 29, 2008

The pe titioner, Morris Nea l Davis, appe als th e H a r d e ma n County Circuit Court’s summary

dismiss al of his petition for the writ of habea s corpus. On appea l, the petitioner argues that the trial cour t was without authority

or jurisdiction to sentence him outside his statutory sentenc ing r ang e and, f urther, that th e c ourt

la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to sen te nc e him a bo ve the statut or

y min imum sen te nc e

. Th e State has filed a

motion requesting that this court aff irm the lower c ourt’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. Be cause the petitioner ha s failed to alleg e any g round which would re nder the j u d g ments of conviction void, we grant the State’ s motion and affirm the jud g me nt o f t

he Ha rd e man Co un ty

Cir c uit Court

. Tenn. R. App . P. 3; Judgment of the Tr ial Court Aff irme d Pursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f C r im ina l A ppe als

J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A LA N E. G LE NN and J. C. M C L IN , JJ., joined.

Morris Nea l Davis, Whiteville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter ; J. Ross Dyer, Senior Counsel; and Rache l Willis, Assist ant Attorney G ener al, for the appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION

The pe titioner was indicted f or two counts of r ape of

a child (Class A f

elony ). On June 19, 2007, the petitioner e ntere d gu i lty pleas to two counts of the lesser of fense of ag g ravated sexual battery (Class B f

elony ). Pursuant to the plea

agr ee ment, the petitioner, a Rang e I offe nder, w as
se nte nc e d to c on c ur

re nt f if te e n- y e ar s e nte nc e s, Rang e I Ise nte nc e s.W e are co ns t r ai ned t o not e t hat t he pet i t i oner has f ai l ed t o f i l e a com pl et ed bri ef

o n app eal

. T he bri ef

s ubmi t t ed 1
b y th e p e tit io n e r c o n ta ins n o a rg u m e n t se c tio n , a n d , th e re fo re , n o c itatio n to leg a l au tho rity to su p p o rt h is a rg u m e n t. A “N o tice to the C o u rt” is i n c lud e d , w h ic h a sse rts t h a t th e p e titio n e r d id no t ha v e su ff ic ie n t t im e to c o m p le te the b rie f. T h o u g h the ru le s o f o u r c o u rt a llo w fo r w a ive r i n this ins ta n c e , w e , no n e the le ss, e le c t re v ie w o f t h e issu e b e fo re us in the inte re st o f ju stice a n d ju d ic ia l ec o n o m y. See T e n n . R . C rim . P . 2 7 (a )( 7 ); T e n n . C t. C rim . A p p . R . 1 0 (b ).

-2- On Dec ember

5, 2007, the petitioner filed a pr o s e petition f or writ of habea s corpus re lief seeking relief from the imposit ion of an illega l se ntence

. In support of his pe tition, t h e p et i t i o n er argued that t h e s en t en ces imposed by the trial cour

t were illega l beca

use the c ourt was without jurisdiction to sentence him outside of his statutory sentenc ing r ang e. He further asser ted, re ly ing upon Cun ningh am v . Ca lif or nia , 549 U.S. 270, 127 S. C t. 856 (2007), that the t rial court was without jurisdiction to enhance his sentence above the statutory minimum sentenc e. On Dec ember 14, 2007, the lower court summarily denied habea s corpus relief
, finding that the petitioner’s cl ai m s were without merit, as the petitioner’s se ntence s had not e x pired and the sentenc ing c ourt had jurisdiction to sentence the petitioner to the sente nces r ece ived. Specific ally , the lower court h el d that the sentenc es imposed were not illega l as t hey wer e the result of a valid plea a g ree ment and, fur ther, that any Six th Amendment claims we re w aived. 1

The rig ht to seek habe as cor pus relief is guara

nteed by Article I , Section 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution. Su mm e rs v . S tate , 2 1 2 S

. W

. 3 d

2 5 1
, 2 5 5 (T en n

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Sta tev . R itc hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 629 (Tenn. 2000) ); Hi c k ma n v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 16, 19 (Tenn. 2004) . Howeve r, the g rounds upon which ha

beas c orpus relief will be g rante d are narr ow. Id . Relief will only be g rante d if the petition establishes that the cha lleng ed judg ment is void. Id. A j udg ment is void “only when ‘it appea rs upon the fac e of the judgme nt or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed’ that a convictingcourt was without jurisdiction or authority to sentenc e a defe ndant, or that a defe ndant’s sentenc e of imprisonment or other re straint has expired.” Id. (quoting Archer v

. Sta te , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ). Unlike the post-conviction petition, the purpose of the habea s corpus petition is to contest a void, not merely voidable, judg ment. Id . at 25 5- 56 ; State ex rel. Newsom v. He nderson, 424 S.W .2d 186, 189 (Tenn. 1968)

. The pe titioner has t he burden of establishi ng either a void judgme nt or an illeg al confine ment by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). I f the pe titioner car ries this burden, he is entitled to im mediate r elea se. Id. Howeve r, if the ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion

fa ils to d e mon str a te that th e jud g me nt i s v oi d or that th e c on fi ne me nt i s illega l, neither a

ppointment of counsel nor an evidentiary hear ing is re quired a nd the trial cour

t may proper ly dismiss the petition. Hickm an, 15 3 S.W. 3d a t 20 (c iti ng T. C.A

. § 2 9- 21 -1 09 (2 00 0) ; Dixon v. Holland , 7 0 S. W.3 d 3 3, 36 (T e nn . 2 00 2) ); Pa ssa rella , 891 S.W .2d at 619. B eca use the deter mination of whether

habea s corpus re lief should b e granted is a question of law, this court’ s
re vie w i s de novo with no presumptio n o f co rrectness. Ha rt v . S tate , 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000).

Th e pe tit ion e r f

ir st a rgue s th a t hi s se nte nc e is ille g a l bec a us e he wa s se nte nc e d o uts ide his statutory sentenc ing r ang e. As no t ed
, t h e p eti tioner, who qua lified as a Ra ng e I offe nder, w as-3-

sentenc ed to a ter

m of fiftee n y ear s, a Rang e I Isentenc e, for Class B felony convictions. Acc ording to the petitioner, the lawdoes not allow him to be sentenced outside his statutory rang e, which f

or a Rang e I offe nder c onvicted of Class B felonies, is e i gh t t o twelve year s. See T.C.A. § 40-35- 11 2( a )( 2) (2 00 6) . H ow e ve r, the pe tit ion e r’ s argume nt ig no re s that our su pr e me c ourt

ha s r e pe a te dly held that a defe ndant can plead outside his r ang e as part of a neg otiated plea agr ee m en t an dthat hy brid sentenc es, such as the one rec eived by the petitioner, do not contra vene the 1989 Sentencing Act. Se e Ho ov e r v . S

tate , 2 15 S.W. 3d 77 6 (T e nn . 2 00 7) ; Mc Con ne ll v . S tate , 12 S.W .3d 795, 798 (Tenn. 2000) . In Hoove r , th e c ourt sp e c if ic a lly state d th a t “ a ple a -b arg a ine d se nte nc e may le g a lly exceed the max imum available in the offen d er rang e so longas the sente nce doe s not ex cee d the maxi mum punishm ent a u t h o ri z ed for the ple a off ense.” 12 S.W .3d at 780. Thus, a knowingand voluntary g uilty plea wa ives any

irregularity

as to offe nder c lassification or r elea se elig ibilit y .” Hi c k s v . S tate , 945 S.W .2d 706, 708 (Tenn. 1997)

.
Whil e the r ecor d befor e this court indicate s that the petitione r was, in fact, a Rang e I

o ff en d er , i t i s cl ea r, co n tra ry t o h i s as s ert i o n s , th at h e kn o wi n gl y agr ee d t o b e se n t en ce d as a R an ge I I offe nder as part of the pl ea ag ree ment. The judgments of conviction i nclude a notation that the pe tit ion e r w ill ing ly

and kn ow ing ly

a c c e pte d a

Rang e I Ise nte nc e

. Mo re ov e r, the re c or d in c lud e s a signe d, written statement a cknowledg ing that the petitioner was p leadingoutside of his statutory rang e. Additionally , prior to ac ceptingthe plea a g ree ment, the trial cour t questioned the petitioner

e xten siv e ly

re g ard ing his de c isi on

to a c c e pt t

he a g re e me nt, wh ic h s pe c if ie d a se nte nc e outsi de his applicable rang e. As such, the petitioner has failed to establish that his sentence s are illega l or that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief.

T h e p e ti ti o n e r a ls o ar g u e s h e is e n ti tl e d to r e li e f
, r e ly ing upon Cun ningh am v . Ca lif or nia , beca use the trial c ourt improperly enhanc ed his sentenc e above the statutory minimum sentenc e of eig ht y ear s. Howeve r, the re cord be fore us fails to implicate the holding of Cunningham , as the trial court made no fac tual deter minations which it us ed to upwardly adjust the sentenc e imposed. Reg ardle ss, it has been re peate dly held that, eve n if a pe titioner is sen t en ced in violation of Cunningham or Blakely v. W ashington , 5 42 U. S. 2 96 , 1 24 S. Ct . 2 53 1 ( 20 04 ), su c h v iol a tio n w ou ld rende r the judg ment voidable and not void. W ay for d D e mo nb ru e n, J

r. v . S t ate , M2004-03037-CCAR3- HC (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. , at Na sh vil le , Jun e 30 , 2 00 5) ; Sta nle yHa rv e ll v . G le n Tu rn e r, No. W20 04 -0 26 43 -C CA -R 3- HC (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. , at Jac ks on , Apr . 1 2, 20 05 ); Ea rl D av id C ra wfo rd

v . R ic k yBe ll , No. M2004-02440-CCA-R3-HC (T enn. Crim. App., at Na shville, Feb. 15, 2005)

. Upon consider ation of the rec ord, the plea dings, a nd the applica

ble law, this court c oncludes that the petitioner ha s failed to esta blish that he is entitled to habeas c orpus rel ief. He has neither established that his eff

ective f ifteen- y ear

sentence h as ex pired nor that the trial court wa s without jurisdiction or authority

to enter the sentenc es imposed. The lower cour t properly deter mined that the pe tit ion e r h a d f

a ile d to e sta

bli shhis e nti tle me nt t o h a be a s c or pu s re lie f. Whe n a

n o pin ion wo uld have no pr ece dential value, the Court of Criminal Appeals may

aff irm the judg ment or ac tion of the trial co urt b y me mo r an d u m o p in io n w h e n th e ju d g me n t is r e n d e r e d o r th e a c ti o n ta ken in a proce edingwithout a jury and such judg ment or ac tion is nota dete rmination of gu i l t , and the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the findi ng of the trial judg e. SeeTe nn . Ct . Cr im. Ap p. R. 20. We conclude that this c ase satisfies the criter ia of Rule 20. Acc ording ly , it is ordered that the-4-

State’s motion is gra

nted. The judg ment of the lowe r cour t is affirmed in a ccor dance with Rule 20, Rul e s o f t he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

___________________________________ JO HN EV ER ET T W IL LI AMS , J UDGE