IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 14, 2013

STEPHAN L. BEASLEY v. AVRIL CHAPMAN, WARDEN

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County

No. 15337 Jim T. Hamilton, Judge

No. M2013-01380-CCA-R3-HC - Filed February 6, 2014

Petitioner’sthird habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction for first degree murder, with

a sentence of life without parole, was dismissed by the trial court without an evidentiary

hearing. Petitioner argues on appeal that he is entitled to relief because (1) the trial court

failed to require the State to make an appropriate election of offenses; (2) the indictment was

erroneously amended; (3) Petitioner was never given notice of the offense he was charged

with; and (4) a final ground that can only be accurately described by a direct quote from

Petitioner’s brief: “whether the unanimity of the verdict was decided upon imparcially [sic]

due to multiple offenses that have never been recognized by the Grand Jury that has always

been a Constitutional right of any citizen born in the United States that have alleged to have

committed an offense.” We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule of the

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeal 20.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT

WILLIAMS and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Stephan L. Beasley, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Michelle L. Consiglio-Young,

Assistant Attorney General; and Mike Bottoms, District Attorney General, for the appellee,

State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The law in Tennessee is well settled that only a void judgment can afford habeas

corpus relief in the nature of Petitioner’s allegations.
Habeas corpus relief is available in Tennessee only when “it appears upon the

face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which the judgment

is rendered” that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to

sentence a defendant, or that a defendant’s sentence of imprisonment or other

restraint has expired.

Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 147, 164 (Tenn. 1993).

Petitioner’s sentence of life imprisonment without parole, imposed by judgment

entered November 23, 1994, has not expired. It does not appear on the face of the judgment

or the record of the proceedings that the judgment is void. Habeas corpus relief can be

granted only if the judgment is void, as opposed to a voidable judgment. Taylor v. State, 995

S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). “A voidable conviction or sentence is one which is facially

valid and requires the introduction of proof beyond the face of the record or judgment to

establish its validity.” Id. The indictment was quoted in the opinion of Petitioner’s appeal

from dismissal of his first petition for habeas corpus relief. Stephan Lajuan Beasley v. State

of Tennessee, No. E2005-00367-CCA-MR3-HC, 2005 WL 3533265 at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App.

Dec. 27, 2005). Petitioner’s claim of inadequate notice is without merit. The other claims,

even if true, do not assert cognizable claims in a habeas corpus proceeding. That is, even if

true, they would render the judgment possibly voidable, but never void.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule of the Court

of Criminal Appeals 20.

___________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

-2-