1



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

AT JAC KSON

RUDOLPH POW ERS v . STATE O F TENNESSE E (TO NY PARKER, WARDEN)

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 07-CR

8971 R. Lee M oore, Jr ., Judge

No. W2007-01245-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Fe bruary 27, 2008

The Petitioner, Rudolph Powers, appe als the lower court’s denial of hi s petition for ha beas corpus r elief. The State has filed a motion reque sting that this Court aff irm the t rial cour

t pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Pe t i t i o n erhas fa iled to comply with the proce dural pre requisites for seeking habea s corpus re lief. Ac cording ly , we a ffirm the tria l court’s dis mis sa l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e ntof t he Tr ialCo ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

D AVI D G. H AYES , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o urt, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined. Rudolph P ower s, pro se.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Michael Moore , Solicitor Genera l; Rachel E. Wil lis, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION

In 1981, the P eti tioner, Rudolph Powers, was c onvicted of a g g ravated ra pe and r obbery
acc omplished with a dea dly wea pon. See R udolph Powers v. Neil Rone, W arden , No. 02C01-9208- CR-00191 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, J un. 9, 1993), perm. to appeal de nied , (T en n
. Oc t. 4, 1993). F or these of

fense s, the Petitioner rec eived se ntence s of life im prisonment and twenty -five y ear s, respe ctively

. Id. Th e Pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio ns and se nte nc e s w e re a ff ir me d o n d ir e c t a

pp e a l.2

Se e Sta te v . R ud

olp h P owe rs , No. 6 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, D ec. 30, 1982) , perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Ma

r. 14, 1983). The Petitioner has filed numer ous petitions for post-c onviction relief and habe as cor

pus relief . All attempts for re lief vi a collateral attack have been unsuc cessf ul. See, e.g., State v. R udolph Powers, No. 02C01-9503-CR-00084 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, N ov. 22, 1995), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. May 6, 1996) (a ffirmingdenial of post-c onviction relief) ; Rudolph Powers v. N

eil Rone, W

arden , No. 02C01-9208-CR-00191 (a ffirmingsummary dismiss al of po st- c onvic tio n r e lie f) ; Sta tev . R ud olp h P owe rs , No. 92 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Sept. 13, 1989), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. Nov. 27, 1989)(de nying f ifth petition for post-conviction relief ). The Petitioner is cur

rently confine s at the West Tennesse e State Penitentiary

.

On May 2, 20 07 , th e Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a pe tit ion fo r the iss ua

nc e of the wr it of

ha be a s c or pu s. As g rounds f

or re lief, the Petitioner asse rted that he is servinghis sentence under thre e diffe rent statutes. By

order enter ed May

17, 2007, the lower

court de nied habe as cor

pus relief , making the following finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law:

. . . He state s that the sentenc es we re impos ed u nder the 1982 Sentencing Reform Act, althoug h the cr imes were committed while a prior a ct was in e ffe ct. The petition further state s that he wa s indicted on September 5, 1980. He ha s petitioned Court s f or ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f a

nd po st- c on vi cti on re lie f p re vio us ly and the se petitions were a ll denied. He a lleg es that his c onvictions were void due to the fa ct that he is servingsentenc es under three differ ent stat u t es
. He believes that the sentenc es ar e illeg al and void. . . .

He attaches to his petition copies of wh at ap p ear to be portions of other petitions either for post-conviction relief or habea s corpus relief. Also attached a re various Exhibi ts which do not establish any cog nizable claim fo r habea s corpus relief

.

. . . He alleg ing that he wa s sentence d under one sentenc ing a ct when the crimes f or which he has been convicted occur red while another act was in eff ect. Allegations of petit ioner in this case do not make a c og nizable claim that his convictions are void. At best, the sentenc es ar e mer ely voidable. . . . The Petitioner timely

filed a notice of appe al document.
The de termination of whe ther to g rant habea s corpus re lief is a question of law

. See H ickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16, 19 (Tenn. 2004) . The Ten n es s ee C onstitut ion gua rante es a c onvicted criminal defe ndant the rig ht to seek habea s corpus re lief. SeeTenn. Const. art. I , § 15. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which habea s corpus re lief will be g rante d are very narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn.1999) . A petition for habea s corpus re lie f m ay o n l y b e g rante d when the judgme nt is shown to be void, rather tha n mere ly void able. Id. A j ud g me nt i s v oid on ly wh e n it
a pp e ars up on

the fa c e of

the jud g me nt o r t

he re c or d o f t

he pr oc e e din g s up on

wh ic h th e jud g me nt i s3

rende red that the convictingcourt wa s without jurisdiction or authority to sentenc e a de fenda nt or that a defenda

nt's sentence has expired. Archer v . State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn.1993) . On the other ha nd, a voidable judg ment or sentenc e i s one which is fa cially valid and which r equire s e v i d e n c e b e yo n d th e f

a c e o f th e j u d g m e n t o r th e r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o e s t a

b l i s hi t s i n v a l i d i ty. Tay lor , 995 S.W .2d at 83.

A p e t i t i o n e r

b e ar s t h e b ur d e no f

e s t a b l i s h i n g a v o i d

j u d g m e n to r

i l l e g a l c o n f

i n e m e n tb y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. W yatt v. State, 24 S.W. 3d 31 9, 32 2 (T e nn .2 00 0)

. F ur the rm or e , it is permissible for a c ourt to summarily dismiss a habea s corpus petition, without t he appointment of counse l and without an evidentiar y hear ing, if

there is nothin g o n t h e face of the re cord or judgme nt to indicate that the convict i o n s or sentenc es addr essed ther ein ar e void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

.

The State ha s filed a moti o n re q u est ing that this C ourt aff irm the lower c ourt’s dec ision. Specifical l y , t h e State asser ts that summary

dismiss al of the pe tition i s appropr iate bec ause the Pe tit ion e r d id n ot “ a tta c h to the ha be a s c or pu s pe tit ion pe rt ine nt do c ume nts fr om the re c or d o f h te underlying pr ocee dings to support his f actua l a ssertions.” Most sig nificantly , the State cites to the P et i t i o n er ’s fa i l ure t o at t ac hco p i es o f t h e j u d gm en t o rd er s fo r t h e c h al l en gedco n v i ct i o n s , al th o u gh he did attac h the “jury

verdic t mitt imus” for e ach c onviction.

Th e pr oc e du

ra l r e qu ir e me nt s fo r hab eas c orp us rel ief are m and ato ry

andmu st be s cru

pu lou sly followed. Hickm an, 153 S

. W

. 3 dat 19-20. The formal r equire ments for a n application for

habea s c or pu s r e lie f a

re c od if ie d at 29 -2 1- 10 7, Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d, and a tr ia l c ourt

may pr op e rl y choose to dismiss a petition for fa iling to comply with the statutory proce dural re quirements . . . .” Hickm an, 153 S.W .3d at 21. In the pre sent ca se, the Peti t i o n er fa i led to adher e to the mandatory require ments for ha

beas c orpus petitions. Specifically , the Petitioner failed to include a copies of the judgme nts of conviction under which he claims he is illeg ally d etained. SeeT.C.A. § 29-21- 107(b)( 2). This rea son alone provides adequate justification f or summary

dismiss al of the pe tition. Se e Fa ulk ne r v . S tate , 226 S.W .3d 358, 365 (Tenn. 2007)

. When an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, the Court of Criminal Ap p ea l s may a ff ir m t he judg 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

ken in a pr oc e e din g wi 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 finding of the trial judg e. SeeTenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 20. W e co n cl u d e t h at this case satisfies the criter ia of Rule 20 . Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d th a t the S tate ' s mo tio n is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is
a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f t he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls.4 ___________________________________ 

### DA VID G. HA YES , JU DGE