### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

JEREM Y S . C ROS BY v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Hickman County No. 04-5124C R uss Held m an, Jud ge

No. M2005- 00153-CCA -R3-HC - F iled May 25, 2005

The De fenda n t , J er em y S

. Crosby , appea ls from the trial court’s dismiss al of his petition seeking habea s corpus re lief. The State has filed a motion reque sting that this Court affir m the trial court’ s de nia l of re lie f p ur su a nt t o Ru le 20 , Rule s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls. Th e Sta te ’s mot ion is g rante d. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim . App. R.

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J
., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

J ere my S. Crosby , Only , Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Pre ston Shipp, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral; and Ron Davis, Fr anklin, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

Ac c or din g to the pe tit ion fo r w ri t of ha be a s c or pu s c on ta ine d in the re c or d, the De fe nd a nt, J ere my S. Crosby , was c onvicted, upon his pleas of g uilty , of two counts of the sale of c ocaine over 0.5 g ra m s

. T h e petiti on alleg es that he w as sentenc ed to eig ht y ear s and six months for ea ch conviction to be ser ved as a standard, Ra ng e I

offe nder in the D epartment of Correc tion.

Th e g ra va me n o f the De fe nd a nt’ s p e tit ion is tha t the jud g me nts of c on vic tio n e nte re d a g a ins t him are void be cause his sentence s are illega l. He arg ues t hat hi s sentenc es vi olate Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-211( 1) which provides in pertinent part, “Spec ific sentenc es for a fe lony shall be for

a ter m of y ear s or m o n t hs or life, if the de fenda nt is sentenced to the D epartment of Correc tion . . . .” Because the statute only authorizes felony

sentenc es in the De partment of Cor re c tio n f or te rm s o f y e ars or mon ths , he arg ue s th a t hi s se nte nc e s, wh ic h a re e xpre sse d in te rm s of y ear s and months, are illega l and void.-2-

The State moved the trial court to dismiss the habea s corpus pe tition because ( 1) the De fe nd a nt f

a ile d to comply wi th the ma nd a tory re qu ir e me nts of the ha be a s cor pu s sta tut e s se t f

orth in Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d se c tio n 29 -2 1- 10 7, a nd (2 ) the pe tit ion fa ile d to state a c olo ra ble c la im fo r h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f. Th e De fe nd a nt s ub se qu e ntl y fi le d a n a ff

ida vit in w hic h h e a tte mpt e d to bring his petition into compliance with T ennesse e Code Annotated section 29-21-107. The rea fter, the tr ia l cou rt e nte re d an or de r g ra nti ng the Sta te ’s mot ion to dis mis s, fi nd ing the mot ion to b e “ we ll taken.” I t is from this order of dismiss al that the Def endant a ppeals. The State has moved this Court to affir m the judgme nt of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Ap pe a ls.

Article 1, se ction 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es the rig ht to seek ha beas c orpus relief and Te nnessee Code Ann o tated sec tions 29-21-201 et seq. c odify the applica

ble proc edure s for se eking a w ri t

. Ho we ver, the g rounds upon which our law provide s relief

are very narr ow. Ta y lor v. Sta te , 995 S.W. 2d 78 , 83 ( Te nn . 1 99 9) . H abe a s c or pu s r e lie f i s a va ila

ble in T e nn e sse e on ly when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt is render ed that (1) the convicting court was without jurisdiction or authorityto sentence a def endant; or ( 2) the de fenda nt’s sentenc e has e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)

. Thus, the g rounds upon which ha beas c orpus re lief will be g rante d are very narr ow. Sta te v. Ritc hie , 20 S.W.3 d 624 , 630 (T e nn . 200 0)

. I t is pe rm iss ibl e fo r a tri a l cou rt to s umm ari ly dismiss a petition for ha

beas c orpus re lief, without the app o i n t m en t of counse l and without an evidentiary

hearing, if

there is nothing on t he face of the judg ment to indicate that the c onvictions addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

The State fir st arg ues that the judg ment of the tr i al co u rt s h ould be af firmed be cause the De f e n d a n t f a il e d to c o mp ly w ith th e ma n d a to r y r e q u ir e me n ts o f o u r h ab e a s c o rp u s s tatute s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 2 9 -2 1 -1 0 7. Our Supreme Court has rec ently confirme d that the proc edura l

r e q u ir e me n ts ar e ma n d a to r y a n d mu s t b e f

o ll o w e d s c ru p u lo u s ly

. Se e H ic k ma n v

. St a te , 1 5 3 S. W. 3d 16, 21 (Tenn. 2004)

. A habeas corpus court may proper ly choose to dismiss a petiti on for f ailing to comply with the statutory

proce dural re quirements. I d.

Although w e do not imply that the trial court erre d by dismiss ing the petition based upon the proce dural defec ts, we affirm the judgme nt of t he trial court beca use there is nothing in the re cord to indicate that the c onvictions addresse d there in are void. We conclude that the s entenc es for the Def endant’ s convictions are authorized by law whe ther the se ntence s are stated as ( 1) eig ht and onehalf y ear s, (2) e ight y ear s and six months, or (3) one hundred and two months. The petition does not set forth a colora ble claim and the Def

endant is not entitled to habea s corpus re lief base d upon the alleg ations contained in the pe tition.

We ag ree that t h e t ri al court did not err by dismiss ing the petition for habe as cor pus relief wi tho ut a he ari ng

. Th e jud g me nt i n th is c a se wa s in a pr oc e e din g be fo re the tr ia l c ou rt wi tho ut a jury , the judg ment is not a determination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the fi nd ing of the tr ia l c ou rt

that th e pe tit ion sh ou ld b e dis mis se d. Ac c or ding ly , th e Sta te ’s mot ion is-3-

g rante d. The judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed in a ccor dance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Te nn e sse e Cou rt

of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ DAVI D H. WEL LES, J UDGE