### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs N ove m be r 16, 200 4 AN DR E MA YF IELD v. HO WAR D C AR LTON , Ward en Direc t Appeal fromthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County

No. 4385 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2004-01561-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Fe bruary 18, 2005

The De fendant, Andre M ay fi el d , filed for a writ of habea s corpus, see king to invalidatesever al convictions he obtained in 1989. The S tate responded by filing a motion to di smiss. The trial court g rante d th e State ’s motiona ndthi s a pp e a l f oll ow e d. We aff

irm th e tria l c ou rt ’s jud g me nt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.
Andre May field, Mountain City , Tenne ssee, Pro Se.
Paul G. Sum me rs , Attorne y Ge ne ral a nd Re po rt e r; Kathy D. As lin g e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ral; and Joe Crumley , District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION

The De fendant pled g uiltyin 1989 to robbery , rec eiving stolen property , and burg lary . The D e f e n d a n t r e c e iv e dc o n c u rr e n t f iv e - y e ar s e n te n c e s f

o r th e f ir s t t w o o f

th e s e o f f e n s e s and a c o n s e c u t i v e th r e e - y e ar

t e r mf o r th e b u r g l ary , r e s u l t i n g i n a n e f f e c t i v e s e n t e n c e o f

e i g h ty e ar s . In 19 9 9 , a ju ry c o n v ic te d th e D e f e n d a n t o f tw o c o u n ts o f a g g r a v a te d k id n ap p in g , o ne count of ag g ravated robbe ry , one coun t o f aggr avated rape , and one c ount of rape . For these c rimes, the Def endant r ece ived an e ffe ctive sente nce of fifty y ear s. His sentence s for t h ese c rimes wer e enhanc ed on the ba sis of his 1989 convictions. The Def endant is c urre ntly

incar cer ated unde r the se nte nc e s h e re c e ive d f

or the19 99 c on vic tio ns .T h e D ef en dan t a ct u al l y f

i l ed t wo pet i t i on s s ee k i n g h abe as cor pu s r el i ef i n Apr i l 2004. T h e s ec on d pe t i t i on 1 chal l enged t he D efend ant ’ s 1 9 9 9 co nvi ct i o ns. Fo r r easons not app arent f rom t he reco rd, t he se tw o p et i t i o ns were dock et ed unde r t h e s ame c as e n u mber

. H owe v er , t h e St at e r es pon ded on l y t o t h e pet i t i on a ddr es s i n g t h e 1989 co nvi ct i o ns. Li kewis e, t he t ri al co urt dis p o sed o f only t he p et i t i o n ad d res si ng t he 1 9 8 9 co nvi ct i o ns. I ni t i ally, t he D efend ant s o ught revi ew i n t hi s ap p eal of t he t ri al co urt ’ s f ai l ure t o ad d res s hi s second A p ri l 20 0 4 pe t i t i o n. H o wever, in J u ly 2 0 0 4 , t h e D e fen d a n t f iled a third p e tit io n ra ising the sa m e c o n c e rn s a b o u t his 1 9 9 9 c o n v ic tio n s tha t he ra ise d in hi s second A p ri l 2 0 0 4 p et i t i o n. T he D efend ant has al so i nd i cat ed i n hi s “Re p l y t o A p p el l ee M o t i o n fo r P o st

- Jud gem ent Fa ct ” t h at h e wi s h es t o w i t h dr aw f r om t h i s Cour t ’ s con s i der at i on t h e t r i al cou r t ’ s f ai l u r e t o r u l e on t h e s ec on d Apr i l 2004 p et i t i o n. A cco rdingl y , i n t hi s ap p eal we co nf i ne o ur r evi ew t o t he D efend ant ’ s i ni t i al A p ri l 20 0 4 pe t i t i o n whi ch seeks t o i nv ali d ate his 1 9 8 9 co nv i cti o ns. -2- I n A pril 2 00 4, theDe fe nd a nt f ile d a pe titionfo r a

writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s, se e kin g the re by

to invalidate his 1989 convictions. The Def endant claims that the sentenc es orde red to be serve d on 1 the 1989 convictions we re illeg al and that the judg ments arethere forevoid. T h e State re sponded by fi lin g a motionto d ism iss , p ointi ng ou t th a t th e De fe nd a nt w a s n o lo ng e r “ re str a ine d o f h is liberty ” pursuant to the convictions being challeng ed, and that habe as cor pus relief was ther efor e not available . The trial c ourt found the State’ s motion t o be well-take n and dismissed the Def endant’ s petition without further proce eding s. The Def endant now appeals. We f ind no err or i n t h e t ri al court’s disposition of this matter.
Our st atu tes pro vi de t hat“[ a] nypers on im pri so ned or r est rai nedof l ib ert y , und e r a ny pre te ns e whatsoeve r, . . . may

prosec ute a writ of habe as corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-101 (e mphasis added) . Howeve r, as our supreme c ourt has re cently reiter ated: the g rounds upon which ha b ea s corpus r elief w ill be gr anted a re na rrow. H abea s corpus r elief is prope r only if the petition establ i s h es that the cha lleng ed judg ment is void, as oppose d to me rely voidable. A judgme nt is void “ only when ‘[i] t appea rs upon the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eedin g s upon which the jud g me nt i s r e nd e re d’ that a c on vic tin g c ou rt

wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n o r a uth ority to sent e n c e a

d e f e n d a n t, o r

th a t a d e f e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e o f

imp r is o n me n t o r

o ther restraint has expi red.” Furthermore , a sentenc e “imposed in dire ct contravention of a statut e . . . is vo id andill e g a l.” Whe n t he habea s c or pu s p e tit ionfails to demonstrate that the j udg ment is void, a trial court may properly dismiss the petition wi th o u ta h eari n g. Hickman v. State, __ S.W.3d __, __, 2004 W L 2563267, at *1 (Te nn. 2004) (c itations omi tted).
I n response to the Def

endant’ s claim for r elief, the State contends that the Defendant is no longe r imprisoned or r estraine d of his liberty pursuant to thesentenc es that he r ece ived for the1989 c on vic tio ns wh ic h h e is c ha lle ng ing

. Ac c or din g ly , th e State a sse rt s, theDe fe nd a nt i s n ot e nti tle d to se e k h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f w ithre sp e c t to tho se c on vic tio ns .-3-

We ag ree . The De fendant arg ues that the sentenc es under which he is c urre ntly

incar cer ated (for the 1999 convictions) wer e enhanc ed by his 1989 convictions, and that he is ther efor e entitled to s e e k r e lie f. Ou r s up re me c ou rt ha s r e je c te d th is c on te nti onho we ve r, ho ldi ng that

a pe rs onis no t “ re str a ine d of lib e rty ” fo r p ur

po se s o f the ha

be a s c or pu s st a tut e un le ss the cha lleng ed judg ment itself imposes a re straint upon the petit ioner’s free dom of action or move ment. Use of thechalleng ed judg ment t o en h an ce the sentenc e imp os e d o n a

se pa rate c on vic tio n is no t a r est rai nt of lib e rty su ff ic ie nt t o p e rm it a habea s corpus c halleng e to t h e o ri ginal conviction long afte r the sente nce on the orig inal conviction has e x pired. Hickman, __ S.W.3d at __, 2004 WL2563267, at *5.
Th e De fe nd a nt w a s se nte nc e d to a n e ff e c tiv e te rm

of e ig ht y e ars fo r h is 19 89 c on vic tio ns . Those sente nces have long since e x pired. The Def endant is no longe r imprisoned or r estraine d of his liberty as a r esult of his 1989 convictions, and he is the ref ore not e ntitled to seek habe as cor pus re lie f the re up on . T he De fe nd a nt’ s c la im i s w ith ou t me ri t.
We aff irm th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE