### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A s s i gne d on B r i e f s J ul y 21, 2004 EA R L E. H A Y N ES v . W A Y N E BR A N D O N , W A R D EN Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hickman County No. 03-5091C- 1 Russ Heldman, Judge

No. M2004- 00221-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Augu st 20, 2004 The pe titioner, Earl E. Hay nes, appeals the dismiss al of his pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus relating to h is f e lon y mur de r c on vic tio n. We a ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt
. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed J OE G. R I L EY , S P . J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined. Earl E. H aynes, Only , Tenne ssee, Pro Se
. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; B rent C. Cherry , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Ronald L . Davis, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION The pe titioner and his co-de fendants, Charles Allen and Charles S crug g s, wer e convic ted of felony murder f or their a ctions resulting in the deat h o f R o sie L ee H unter during a robbe ry at her re sid e nc e on Janu ary

1 0 , 1 9 8 2

. T h ep e ti ti o n e r

an d h i s c o - d e f e nd a nts e a c h r e c e ive d li feimp ri so nme nt. A panel of this c ourt aff

irmed their c onvictions and sentenc es on direc t appea l. See State v. Charles A l l e n , J r . , E ar l H a y n e s , a n d C h ar l e s S c ru g g s , C

. C

. A

. N o . 8 3

- 2 2 5

- III , 1 9 8 5 T e n n . C r i m . A p p . LE X IS 3107 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 2, 1985). On Dec ember

12, 2003, the petit ioner filed a petiti on reque sting ha beas c orpus re lief. In the pe tit ion , h e ma int ain ed th e “ F inal D a y Or de r, ” wh ic h s e t ou t th e jury ’s g uil ty ve rd ic t a ndhis se nte nc e , d id n ot c on sti tut e a fi na l judg me nt of c on vic tio n. Th e pe tit ion e r av e rr e d that a s a re su lt, the documents c onstitut ed an illeg al judg ment, and the a ppellate c ourt lacke d jurisdiction to issue a ruling on direc t appea l. The lower court found the judgme nt set out in the “Final Day Orde r” w as valid on its face and sum marily dismiss ed the pe tition. On appeal, the pe titioner contends the lowe r court e rre d in dismi ssing his habe as cor pus petition. W e disag ree . Article I , § 15 of the Te nnessee Constit u t i o n gu ar antees the rig ht to seek habe as cor pus relief . Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 29-21-101 et seq. codify the applica

ble proc edure s for-2-

seeking a writ. W hi l e t h ere is no statutory time limi t in which to file for ha beas c orpus re lief, Tenne ssee law provides very n ar ro w grounds upon which such relief may be g rante d. Tay lor v. State , 9 95 S.W. 2d78 , 8 3 (T e nn . 199 9)

. A ha be a s cor pu s petiti on may

be us e d o nly

to c on te st v oid judgme nts which arefac ially invalid because (1) the convicting court wa s without juris d iction or authority to sentencea def

endant; or ( 2) def

endant’ s sentencehas expired. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)

. Th e pe tit ion e r f

ir st c on te nd s th e “ F inal D a y Or de r” fails to s a tis fy the re qu ir e me nts of a va lid judgme nt. The “F inal Day Orde r” consists of t his order as entered in the court minutes. It provides in p e rtine nt p art

a s f oll ow s: A f t e r d u e d e l i b e r a t i o n s a i dj u ry r e t u rn e di n t o o p e n C o u rta n dd o s a y: We, the jury , find t he De fendants, Charles Allen, Jr., Earl Haynes, and Cha rl e s Sc ru g g s, g uil ty

of F e lon y Mu rd e r i n Co un t 2, a ndfi x the ir punishment at confineme nt in the State Penitentiary for Life. There upon, the Court proce eded to se ntence the Def endants in accordance with the verd ict of the jury ; I t is ORDERED by the Court that the Def

endants, . . . having been f

ound g uiltyof Fel ony

Murder , be conf

ined at har d labor in the Penitentiary

of the State of T ennesse e for Life. This doc ument was dated and signe d by the trial judge

. An additional form attach ed t o t h e c o u rt minutes indicates the petitioner w as cha rg ed with two counts of murde r and onecount of a rmed ro bb e ry , w a s c on vic te d o f f e lon y mur de r, a ndwa s se nte nc e d to lif e imp ri so nme nt. We conclude the issue raised by th e p etitioner is a “te chnica l conce rn” r eg arding the judgme nt which does not void his conviction. See Eddie J. P hifer v. State, N o. M2003-02236-CCAR3-HC, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 193, at **3-6 (Te nn. Crim. App. Mar. 3, 2004) ( holding the petitioner wa s not entitled to habeas c orpus re lief due to the tria l court’s failure to enter a standa rd judgme nt form when the judgme nt contained in the court minutes did not sug g est that the trial court lacke d jurisdiction), perm. to app. denie d (Tenn. 2004) . Fu rt h er m o re , a judg ment enter ed in the c ou rt min ute s is va lid , a s th e “ c ou rt mi nu tes are the hig he st e vid e nc e of wh a t ha s b e e n d on e in c ou rt .” Ma

rv in A nth on y

Matth e ws v. Cha

rl e s C. Nol e s, War de n, C.C .A . N o. 02 C01 -9 20 6- CC00140, 1993 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 123, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. F eb. 24, 1993), perm. to app. denied (T e nn . 1 99 3) . T hu s, thi s is su e is w ith ou t me ri t. Th e pe tit ion e r m a int a ins that inor de r t o b e c on vic te d o f f e lon y mur de r, he mus t have a lso been c onvicted of the underlying f elony of armed robbe ry . The petitioner further submits t he court minutes fail to indicate whether the jury found him g uiltyof ar med robbe ry . Howeve r, bec ause the petitioner has failed to raise these i ssues in his habea s corpus petition, t hese issues a re w aived. See State v. Tu rn e r, 91 9 S. W.2 d 3 46 , 3 56 -5 7 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ). Ne verthe le ss, a se pa rate conviction for the underlying felony is not re quired in orde r to sustain a fe lony murder c onviction. See State v. Townes, 56 S.W.3d 30, 37 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000), overruled on other grounds by State v. Te rry , 1 18 S.W. 3d35 5, 35 9 ( Te nn . 2 00 3)

. F urthe rm or e , the jury is n ot r e qu ir e d to ind ic a te-3-

the underly ing f

elony upon which it based its fe lony murder c onviction. State v. Pric e, 46 S.W .3d 78 5, 82 5 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 20 00 ). Th us , th e se a rg ume nts arewi tho ut m e ri t. The petitioner has raised additional issues reg arding the validity of the judg ments for prior convictions . Howeve r, the pe titioner failed to raise these issues in his habea s corpus pe tition. Re g ard le ss, wedis c e rnno me ri t c on c e rn ing the se iss ue s. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

irm th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt
.

____________________________________ J OE G. RILEY, SPECI AL J UDGE