### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 6, 200 4
JO HNNY L. M C 

### GOW AN, JR. v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Rutherford Coun ty

No. 27902, 27903 Don Ash, Jud ge

No. M2003- 01759-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Jun e 7, 2004

Th e Pe tit ion e r, John ny

L . M c Go wan, Jr., ple d g uil ty in 19 94 to a g g ra vate d ars on , ars on , six c ou nts of re ckless endang er m en t wi t h a dea dly wea pon and two counts of vandalism, and the trial court sentenc ed him to twenty

y ear s in prison, to be served conc urre ntly with a sentenc e fr om a pre vious
c on vic tio n. I n 2 00 3, th e P eti ti one r f ile d tw o p ro se pe tit ion s f or writs of ha be a s c or pu s in c a se nu mbe rs 27 90 2 a nd27 90 3 a lle g ing that hi s g uil ty ple a s we re no t ent e re d kno wi ng ly a ndvo lun tari ly
an d reque sting that the tria l court appoint him counsel. The trial court summarily dismiss ed the pe tit ion s b e c aus e it f

ou ndthat th e Pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims , co ns ide re d in th e lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to h im, would at best rende r his c onvictions voida ble and not void. On appe al, the Petitioner conte nds that the trial court erre d by

denying his re quest for appointment of counsel a nd by dismiss ing his pe titions beca use there wer e “f

ata l v ar iance s” betwe en the indictments and the evidenc e conta ined in the
re c or d. F ind ing no re ve rs ibl e e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s jud g me nts

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Circ uit Court Aff

irm ed
R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.
J ohnny L . McGowan, J r., Pro se.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; El iza be th B

. M a

rn e y , As sis ta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Wil liam C. W hitesell, J r., District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION I. F acts
On Janu ary

24 , 1 99 4, the Pe tit ion e r ple d g uil ty in the Cir c uit Cou rt fo r R uth e rf or d Co un ty to the fo llo wi ng of

fe ns e s: a g g ra vate d a

rs on in c a se nu mbe r 2 79 03 ; ars on in ca se nu mbe r 279 02 ; si x counts of re ckless endang erme nt with a deadly wea pon; and two counts of vandalism. The Petiti oner rec eived a

sentenc e of twe nty

y ear s for ag g ravated arson, five y ear s for a rson and one y ear

on eac h of the e ight r emaining counts. The tria l court orde re d all sentenc es to run conc urre ntly with the-2-

twenty -y ea r sentenc e for

ag g ravated ar son. The judg ment also ref lects that the trial c ourt order ed t h e t w e n t y- ye ar s e n t e n c e t o ru n c o n c u rr e n t l y w i t h a p r i o r , u n r e l a t e d c a s e i n R u t h e r f o r d C o u n t y, bearing c ase numbe r 27110. The r ecor d does not contain a ny details about ca se number 27110.
Acc ording to the Petitioner’s appellate brief, the Petitioner filed two habea s corpus pe titions in April of 2003 in case numbers 27902 and 27903 a lleg ing that h i s gu i l t ypleas we re not e ntere d knowing ly

and voluntarily and reque sting that the trial court appoint him c ounsel. On J une 5, 2003, the tr ia l cou rt su mma

ri ly dis mis se d th e pe tit ion s b e c a us e it f ou ndthat th e Pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims , considere d in the light most favor able to him, would at best render his convictions voidable and not void. The Petitioner appe als from the tria l court’s orde rs.
II. Ana lys is On appe al, th e Petitioner contends that the tria l court er red by denying his re quest for appointment of counse l and by dismiss ing his petitions beca use there wer e “f

atal variance s” betwe en the indictments and the e vidence contained in the r ecor d.
Article I , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constituti on g uarantees its citi z en s t h e ri g ht to seek habea s corpus re lief. I n Tenne ssee, a “per son imprisoned or restrained of [hi s or her ] l iberty , under any prete nse whatsoever

. . . may prosec ute a writ of habea s corpus, to inquire into the ca use of suc h imprisonment .

. . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 (2000). The g rounds upon which ha beas c orpus relief will be g rante d are very narr ow. See Sta te v. Ritc hie, 20 S. W

. 3 d 6 2 4 , 6 3 0 (Tenn. 2000). “Unlike the post-c onviction petition, the purpose of a habea s corpus petition is to c ontest void and
no t me re ly

vo ida ble j ud gment s. ” Pot ts v . St a te , 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . T he re fo re , in
or de r t o s ta te a

c og niza ble c la im fo r ha

be a s cor pu s re lie f, the pe tit ion mus t con te st a v oidjud g me nt. I d. “A void judg ment is one in which the judgment is fa cially invalid because the c ourt did not have the statut ory

auth ority to r e nd e r s uc h ju dg me nt .

. . . A vo idable jud g me nt i s o ne wh ic h is fa c ia lly valid and re quires proof

bey ond the face of the record or judgme nt to demonstrate its voidableness.” Dykes v. Compton , 97 8 S.W.2 d 528 , 529 (T e nn . 1 99 8) (c iti ng Ar c he r v . St a te , 851 S.W .2d 157, 161 (Tenn. 1993) ). T h u s , a writ of habe as cor pus is available only

when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judgme nt or the re cord that the co nvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e a defe ndant, or that the sentenc e of imprisonment or other restraint ha s expired. Arc her , 851 S.W .2d
a t 16 4; P ott s , 833 S.W .2d at 62. The pe titioner bear s the burden of showing , by

a pre pon d er ance of the e vidence , that the
c on vic tio n is vo id o r that th e priso n te rm ha s e xpir e d. Pa ssa

re lla v. State , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (T en n. Crim. App. 1994), superce ded by statute as stated in ( St a te v
. St e v e n S. N e wman , No. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998), no perm. app. filed. Furthermore , the proc edur al require ments for ha beas c orpus re lief ar e mandatory

and must be scr

upulouslyfollowed. Ar cher , 851 S.W .2d at 165. It is permissible for a trial court to summarily

dismiss a petition of habe as cor pus without the appointm ent of a lawy er and without a n e v id e n ti ar y h e ar in g if th e r e is n o th in g o n th e f a c e o f th e ju d g me n t to in d ic a te th at the convictions addre ssed there in are void. See Pa ssa re lla , 89 1 S. W.2 d at 6 27 ; Ro dn e y B uf or d v . St a te ,W e no t e t hat t he ap p el l at e reco rd i ncl ud es a l et t er t o Jud ge C l ayt o n of t he R ut herfo rd C o unt y C i rcui t C o urt 1 regardi ng case num b er 2 7 9 0 3 da t ed O ct o b er 22 , 20 0 1

. W hi l e t hi s l et t er has t he subst ance o f a hab eas corp us p et i t i o n, t he i ss ues r ai sed wit hi n t he l et t er di f fer f rom t he i ss ues covered by t h e t ri al co urt ’ s o rder summ ari l y dis m i ss i ng t he P et i t i o ner’ s p et i t i o n ent ered on June 5, 20 0 3

. C l earl y , t he t ri al co urt d i d no t rel y up o n thi s l et t er whe n it e nt ered ord ers di s mi s s i ng t he t wo habeas cor pus p et i t i ons i n t hi s ca s e. M oreove r , t he P et i t i oner s t at ed i n h i s appel l at e br i ef t hat he f i l ed t wo hab eas corp us p et i t i o ns fo r cas e num b ers 27 9 0 2 a n d 2 7 9 0 3 in A p ri l of 2 0 0 3

. T herefo re, we co ncl ud e t hat t he O ct ob er 22, 200 1, l et t er f r om t he P et i t i oner does not s uf f i ce as t he P et i t i oner ’ s ha beas cor pus pet i t i on i n t hi s ca s e. -3- No. M1999-00487-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 WL 1131867, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J uly 28, 2000), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. J an
. 1 6 , 2001). B eca use the de termination of whe ther ha beas corpus r elief should be g rante d is a question of law, our revie w is de novo with no presumption of
c or re c tne ss. Ha

rt v. State , 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)

. The State c ontends that the P etitioner failed to include the pe titions for ha beas c orpus re lief in the appellate rec ord, and, the ref ore, this Court must pre sume that the trial court’ s judgme nts are corr ect. We agr ee with the S tate. After thoroug hly

revie wing the appe llate re cord, w e cannot find the ha be a s cor pu s pet iti on s for c a se nu mbe rs 27 90 2 a nd27 90 3 inthe app e llate re c or d. I t is the du ty 1 of the Petitioner to pre pare a re co rd wh i ch conve y s a fa ir, ac curate and c omplete ac count of what tr a ns pir e d inthe tr ia l c ou rt wi th re sp e c t to the iss ue s wh ic h f orm th e ba sis of

his app e a l. T e nn . R. App. P. 24(b); State v. B unch, 646 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1983); State v. Gibson, 973 S.W .2d 231, 244 (Tenn. C ri m
. Ap p. 1997); State v. Hopper , 695 S.W .2d 530, 537 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985)

. When the rec ord is incomplete, or doe s not contain the proc eeding s relevant to a n issue, this Court is preclude d from considering this issue. Gibson, 973 S.W .2d at 244; H opper, 695 S.W .2d at 537; State v. Morton , 63 9 S. W.2 d 6 66 , 6 68 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 82 ). Furth e rm or e , th is C ou rt mus t conclusively

presume that the ruling of the trial c ourt was c orre ct in all particula rs
. Gi b s o n, 973 S.W .2d at 244; State v. Tay lor, 669 S.W .2d 694 , 699 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) . Wit hout the two habea s corpus pe titions , we a re unab l e t o co n d u ct a de novo revie w to determine whether habea s corpus relief should be g rante d in this case
. Acc ording ly , beca use the Petitioner failed to f ile the two habea s corpus pe titions at issue in this c ase in the appellate rec ord, we must pre sume that the trial
c ou rt ’s jud g me nts su mma ri ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ion s with ou t app oin tme nt of c ou ns e l ar e c or re c t.
III. Conclusi on
I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing a uthorities and re asoning , we AF FIRM t he trial c ourt’s jud g me nts

.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE