1



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

AT JAC KSON

KENDRI CK KEL LY v. DAVI D G. MIL LS, W ARDEN Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 5846 Joe H. Walker, Judge

No. W2004-01106-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled October 8, 2004

The Petitioner, Ke ndrick Ke lly , appeals the trial court' s denial of his petition for ha beas c orpus relief . The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court' s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. Bec ause Petitioner ha s failed to attach the a

pplicable judg ment of convic tion to his petition, we g rant the State' s motion and a ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the low e r c ou rt
. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYE S AND A L AN E. G L EN N , J J . joined. Kendrick Kelly , pro se. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral & Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l Ma rk ham, A ssi stant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION On April 8, 2004, the Petitioner Ke ndrick Ke lly filed a pe tition for habea s corpus/writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court of L auder dale County . I n the pleading , Petitioner provided information that he wa s being confine d at West TennesseeState Penitentiary . He f urther a sserted that on October

27, 1995, he wa s sentence d to three y ear s for the sa le of unlaw ful controlled2

substances. F or this conviction, he served forty -five day s; the remainde r to be served on probation. On De cembe r 11, 2001, Petitioner was a rre sted on another

drug offe nse and absconding from justice. Petitioner eve ntually enter ed g uiltypleas to these 2001 of fense s and rec eived an eig ht y ear

sentenc e for

the drug sale and two y ear s for a bsconding . Whil e conf

ined by the Depa rtment of Corre ction, Petitioner was provide d information indicating that he had an e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

thi rt e e n y e ars c on fi ne me nt; i.e. , eig ht y ear s for the dr ug offe nse, two y ear s for a bsconding , and thre e y ear s for his 1995 probated offe nse. Petitioner asserts that he is being illegally confine d as his three y ear probate d sentenc e had e x pired prior to the commence ment of the 2001 cha

rg es. Additionally , he alleg es that he ha s been unc onstitut ionally denied a hearing a s to the alleg ed re vocation. On April 15, 2004, the trial c ourt denied r elief f or failure of the Petitioner to attach the judgme nt or rec ord of the pr ocee dings upon w hich the judg ment was re ndere d. Moreove r, the trial court de termined that, fr om the alleg ations contained in the pe tition, t he Petitioner’s sentenc e had not e x pired. On A pril 22, 2004, Petiti oner f iled a motion to reconsider the trial court’s de nial. Attache d to the motion was the judg ment from the Petitioner’s 1995 c onviction. The re cord be fore this Court fails to contain a ruling by the trial court as to this mot ion. Habe as cor

pus relief is available in this state only when it appe ars on the f

aceof the judgme nt or the re cord that the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction to convict or sente nce the defe ndant or that the se ntence of imprisonment has otherw ise expired. Archer v . State, 851 S.W. 2d15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Potts v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . U nli ke thepo stc o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n , t h e p u rp o s e o f t h e h ab e a s c o rp u s p e t i t i o n i s t o c o n t e s ta v o i d , n o tm e r e l y a voidable, judg ment. State ex re l. Newsome v. He nderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). A pe titioner cannot c ollatera lly attack a fac ially valid conviction in a habe as cor pus proce eding

. Potts v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) ; Sta te ex re l. H olb ro ok v . B om ar , 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (1963). The Petitioner has f

ailed to establish that he is entitled to habe as cor pus relief

. Significantly , Petitioner has failed to include in support of his petition copies of the Te nnessee judgme nts he claims ar e void. Withoutquestion, the proce dural provisions of the ha beas c orpus statutes aremandatory

and must be followed sc rupulously .” Arc he r v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d at 165 (c i t i n g Ba te ma n v . S

mi th , 183 Tenn. 541, 543, 194 S.W.2d 336, 337 (1946)). We ag reewith the State that th e a tta c hme nt o f a ph oto c op y

of thejud g me nt f

orm to his motionto r e c on sid e r f a ils to curethe def

iciency in the actua l petition. I n view of the Petitioner’s failureto comply with the mandatory

provisions of section 29-21- 107, Tenne ssee Code A nnotated, summary dismiss al of the petition was prope r. State ex re l. Allen v. Johnson , 217 Tenn. 28, 394 S.W.2d 652, 653 (1965). Mo re ov e r, e ve n a ssu min g that th e a tta c hme nt o f the jud g me nt f orm to themotionto re c on sid e r p e rf

e c te d th e pr oc e du ral r e qu ir e me nts of thepe tit ion , Pe tit ion e r h a s still faile d to e sta bli shg ro un ds fo r w hic h th e writ w ill iss ue . F ir st, Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to e sta

bli shthat hi s sentenc e has e x pired. Sec ond, Petitioner has failed to establish that his sentences a re illeg al.3

Specifica lly , as to the Petitioner’s complaints, the pe tition and the judgment f orm attac hed to the motion to reconsider f

ail to support the Petitioner’s contention that his 1995 probate d sentenc e was re voked in 2001, threey ear s after it ex pired. How ever , from the doc uments attache d to the petition, it appears to this Court that the Petiti oner c halleng es the sente ncing calc ulations of the De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n. Th e qu e sti on of

wh e the r the De pa

rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n is pr op e rl y calc ulating his sente nce c annot be r aised in a ha beas c orpus proc eeding . To cha lleng e such c a lc ulatio ns , th e Pe tit ion e r mus t pr oc e e d u nd e r the Un if orm A dmi nis tr a tiv e Pr oc e du re s A c t in the Chance ry

Court for Da vidson County , Tenne ssee. The Petitioner has not e stablished that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief. He has alleg ed neither

a fa cially invalid judgment nor

an expired sentenc e. Acc ording ly , it is ordered that th e State ’s motionis g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is a ff irme d ina c c or danc e wi th Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, J UDGE