1



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

AT JAC KSON

CHRISTOP HER

BR OWN v. TO NYPA RKE R, WAR DEN (ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE) Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 6133 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2007-01122-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled October 3, 2007

The Petitioner, Christopher Br own, appe als the trial cour t's de nial of his petition for habe as corpus r elief. The State has filed a motion requestingthat this Court affirm the trial c ourt' s denial o f r el i ef p urs u an t t o R

u l e 20 , R u l es o f t h e C o urto f C ri m i n al Ap p ea l s . P et i t i o n er h as fa i l edt o al l ege an y gro un d th atwo u l d

re n d er th e j u d gm en t s o f c o n v i ct i o nv o i d

. Ac co rd i n gl y , we gra n tth e S t at e's mot ion and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he low e r c ourt
. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e ntof t he Tr ialCo ur t Affir m e d P ur sua ntto Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES an d J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined. Christopher B rown, pro se . Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Michael Moore, Solicitor Gener al; Preston Shipp, Assis tant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION
A Davidson County

jury found th e P et itioner, Christopher B rown, guilty of one c ount of attempt to c ommit first degree murder a nd one count of

attempt to commit second degree murder. For these off enses, the tr ial court im posed consecutive sentences of twenty -three y ear s and ten year s respe ctively

. This Court aff irmed t he P etitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appe al. See Sta tev . Ch ris top he r To dd Brown , No. M1999-00691-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville,2

Mar. 9, 2001) , perm. to appeal denied , (Tenn. Sept. 10, 2001) . The Petitioner subseque ntly soug ht post-conviction relief

, which was denied. Se e Chr istop he r Todd Brown v . S

tate , No. M2003-01993- CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J un. 18, 2004), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. N ov. 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 ). T h e P et i t i o n er

i s cu rr en t l y

co n fi n edatth e W es t T en n es s ee S t at e P en i t en t i ary i nHe n n i n g, Tenne ssee. On Marc h 26, 2007, the Petitioner filed an application for wr it of habea s corpus re lief. As g rounds for r elief, the Petitioner alleg ed that the se ntence s imposed by th e trial c ourt wer e unconstitutional because they wer e not imposed by a jury and wer e rende red illega l pur suant to the new rule of l aw announced in the United States Supreme Court dec ision of Blakely v. W ashington. By order enter ed Apr il 20, 2007 , the lower court de nied habe as cor pus relief , findingthat the Petitioner’s sentenc es h ad n ot expi red a nd that the cr iminal court had jurisdiction to sentence the Petitioner to the s entenc es he rec eived. The trial cour t further found that it was without jurisdiction to treat the petition a s one for post-conviction relief

. On May 21, 2007, the Petitioner filed a notice of a pp e a l do c ume nt i n th e L a ud e rd a le County

Cir c uit Court
. The right to seek habeas corpus relief is guara nteed by article I , section 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution. Hi c k

ma n v . S tate ,153 S.W .3d 16, 19 (Tenn. 2004) . Howeve r, the g rounds upon which habea s corpus re lief will be g rante d are narr ow. Id. at 20 (c itations omi tted). Reli ef wi ll only be g rante d if the petition establishes that t he challeng ed judgment is void. Id. A j ud g me nt i s v oid “ on ly when ‘ [ i] t appea

rs upon the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme n t is r e n d e r e d ’ th at a c o n v ic ti n g c o urt w a s w it h o u t ju r is d ic ti o n o r a

u th o r it y to sentenc e a defe ndant, or that a defe ndant’s sentenc e of imprisonment or other restra int ha s expired.” Id. ( qu o t i n g Sta tev . R itc hie , 2 0 S

. W

. 3 d 6 2 4 , 6 3 0 ( T e n n . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c i t at i o n s o m i t t e d ) )

. U n l i k e the po stc onvic tio n p e tit ion , th e purp os e of the habeas corp us peti tio n is to c onte st a vo id, no t me re ly v o id a b le , ju d g ment. St a t e ex rel. Newsome v. He nderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). The pe titioner has the burde n of establishing either a void judg ment or an illeg al conf inement 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 ate th at th e jud g me nt i s v oid or tha t th e c on fi ne me nt i s illega l, neither a

ppointment of counsel nor a n evidentiar

y hear ing are require d and the trial cour t may proper ly dismiss the petition. Hickm an, 15 3 S.W. 3d at 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 re lla , 891 S.W .2d at 619.
The State has filed a motion requestingaff irmance of the lowe r cour t’s dismiss al pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Te nnessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The State argues that the Petitioner fails to state a c og nizable claim for ha beas c orpus re lief.1

R eg ard i ng P eti t i o ne r’ s Bl akel y cl ai m , w e ac k n owl edg e t h at , w h i l e a cl ai m a l l eg i n g a c on s t i t u t i on al v i ol at i on ma y be ra ise d in a p e tit io n fo r p o st-co n v ic tio n re lief, s ee T

. C. A. § 40- 30- 103, t h e Pet i t i on er i s s t at u t or i l y t i me- bar red f r om se e k ing su c h re lief in the ins ta n t ca se . See T

. C

. A

. § 40

- 30

- 10 2(a)

. Al t houg h c er t ai n c i r cums t anc es , i ncl udi ng a f i nal ru ling o f an a p p e llate c o u rt e sta b lishin g a ne w c o n stitutio n a l rig h t, p e rm it the to lli n g o f the sta tute o f l im itatio n s, se e , e.g ., T

. C

. A

. § 4 0 -3 0 -1 0 2 (b )(1 ), t he U ni t ed Stat es Sup rem e C o urt ’ s ho l d i ng i n Bl akl ey v . Was hi ngt on f ai l s t o af

f o rd t he P et i t i oner a gr ound f

or po s t
- convi ct i on r el i ef as t he B l akl ey d e c isio n is no t t o b e giv e n re tro a c tive a p p lica tio n . See I s aac H e rro n v . S ta te , N o . W 2 0 0 4

- 0 2 5 3 3

- C C A

- R 2 8

- P C (T enn. C ri m . A p p . , at Jackson, N o v. 22 , 20 0 4 ) ( order ). 3 In the pre sent ca se, the trial c ourt found that the pe tition fa i l ed to allege any g round demonstratingthat the judgme nt w as void. We ag ree . The Petitioner’s c laim that his convictions or sentenc es are void a s he wa s sentence d in violation of Blakely v. W ashington fails as, e ven if such a violation ha d occur

red, the violation would only rende r the judg ment voidable, not void. See, e .g., 1 W a yf o rd De mo n b r eu n , Jr. v. State, N o . M 2 0 0 4

- 0 3 0 3 7

- CC A

- R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J un . 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ). T hu s , th e P et i t i o n er ’s cl ai m s ar e n o tco gn i z ab l e i n a h ab ea s co rp u s p ro ce ed i n g. Wh e r e th e a ll e g ati o n s in a p e ti ti o n f o r w r it o f h a

b e a s c o r p u s r e li e f d o n o t d e mo n s trate tha t the judgme nt is void, t he trial c ourt may proper ly dismiss the petition without a hear ing. McLaney , 59 S.W .3d at 93.

Upon consider ation of the re cord, the pleading s and the a pplicable law , this Court conclude s that the Petitioner has fa iled to establish that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief. He has neither

established that his eff

ective se ntence has expired nor ha s he established that the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to enter the sentenc es imposed. The tria l court proper ly deter mined that the Petitioner had fa iled to establish his entitl ement to habe as cor pus relief . When an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, the Court of Criminal Appeals may a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt

by me mor and

um o pin ion

wh e n th e jud g me nt i s re nd e re d o r t

he a c tio n ta

ke n in a pr oc e e din gwi tho ut a

jur y and su c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a deter mination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the findingof the trial judge

. SeeTe nn . R. Ct. Cr im. Ap p. 20 . We c on c lud e that th is c a se satis fi e s th e c ri te ri a of Rul e 20. Acc ording ly , it is ordered that the State’s motion is gra nted. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirme d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### J.C . MCLIN, JUDGE