# FILED September 14, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST SES SION, 1998 RONALD PARKER, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9711-CC-00459 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) LAKE COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. R. LEE MOORE, JR . FRED RANEY, WARDEN ) JUDGE and ) STATE OF TENNESSEE ) ) Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)

ON APPEAL FROM THE J UDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAKE COUNTY FOR THE APPELL

ANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : RONALD L. PARKER JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney Generaland Reporter Route 1, Box 660 Tiptonvil le, TN 38079 MARVIN E. CLEMENTS, JR. Assistant Attorney General 425 5th Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243 C. PHI LLIP B IVENS Distri ct Attorney General P.O. Draw er E Dyersburg, TN 38024
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED DAVID H. WELL ES, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION

The De fe ndant, Ronald L. Parker, appeal s as of ri ght from the di smissal of hi s petitio n for ha beas corpu s relief. T he De fenda nt is an inma te in th e cus tody o f the Depart ment of Correct ion. Accordi ng to his pet ition an d the exhibits attached t hereto, on May 1, 1995, he pleaded gui lty to and was convicted of three c ounts ofburglary. For these convi ctions, he was sentenced to t hree concurrent

eight-yea r terms in th e Dep artm ent of Correcti on. His petition for habeas corpus reli ef alleg ed that his convictions a nd sentenc es are void because the sentences were not ordered to be served consec utivel y to a prior sentence as required by l aw. T he trialcourt summaril y dismissed t he habeas corpus petiti on, findingthat the j udgments of convic tion were not

void and that

the Defe ndan t’s sentences had not exp ired. We affirm the judgmentof the trial cou rt.

Habeas corpu s relief is availa ble on ly whe n a co nvic ting cou rt is wi thout jurisdi ction or autho rity to sente nce a d efenda nt or whe n that de fendant’s term of imprisonment or

restrai nt has expir

ed. Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 199 3).

On appeal, t he Defendant argues t hat atthe time he wassentenced for the three burgl aries, hewas on parole fr om a prior

Tennessee sentence of twentyeighty ears. He there fore argues tha t his eight-year sen tences for burg lary c onstitute ill egal sentences because they were not or dered to be served conse cutively to h is twenty -eight yea r senten ce as req uired by la w. See Tenn.-3-

Code Ann. § 40-28-123. The Defendant rel ies upon decisi ons of this Court and of our su preme court wh ich hold th at beca use the law requ ires the trial co urt to impose a consecutive senten ce on any defendant convicted of a felony committed while o n paro le from a state prison , jail, or wo rk hou se, a tria l court is withoutjurisdict ion or authorit y to ent er a judgm ent against a d efendant for a concurrent

senten ce. See Archer , 851 S.W.2d at 163; Hen derso n v. Sta te ex re l. Lance , 419 S.W .2d 176 (Tenn. 1 967); Taylor v. Mo rgan , 909 S.W.2d 17, 20 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1995 ).

We conclud e that the D efenda nt’s argum ents lack meri t. I nit ial ly, we note that the ju dgmen ts sentencing th e Defend ant to eight-year term s for burglary provide that the bu rglary sentences shall be se rved co ncurren t with each other a nd co ncurrent with a sentence from the state of Texas. The judgments make no reference to any prior Tennessee sentences. The r ecord on appeal contains no evide nce c once rning a prior Te nnes see s enten ce oth er than the De fenda nt’s unsupported al legations in his pet ition.
Secondly, we no te that a se ntence for a felony comm itted while th e Defendant was on parole for another felony shal l be deemed to run consecutive to the prior sentence being served on parol e whether the judgment explicit ly so providesor not. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32( c)(3)(A) . Based o n the all egations contained in the Defendant’s peti tion and statements made in his ar gument, the Board of Parole s and the Depa rtment of Cor rection became aware of the pri or-4-

sentence and correctly treated t he eight-year sentences as running consecutive to the pri or sentence.
Although the De fenda nt alleg es tha t his plea agreementprovided t hat the eight- yearsente nces would run co ncurre nt with his prio r sente nce, th e ju dgment s do not so provide. A s we ha ve note d, the judg ments make no refere nce to any prior unserved Tennessee senten ce. Because the Defe ndant’s ei ght-year s entenc es were not ordered to be served concur rently wi th a prior unserved sentence, the eight-year sentences for burgl ary are not i llegal and the judgment of convict ion is not

void.

We conclude that the co nv icting cou rt had jurisd iction and authority to sentence the Defendant, and it i s clear t hat the Defendant’s term of imprisonment underhis eight-year sentence s had not expir ed . Forthis reas on, we conclude that the trial jud ge did no t err in deny ing the D efenda nt habe as corp us relief.

The Defendant also alleges tha t his guilty pleas resulting in the burglary convicti ons were not knowing and vol un tary because his pl ea agreement provided thath is burgla ry sentences woul d run concurrent with his prior sentences. Even if t hese allegat ions were true, they would not provi de the Defen dant a basis for habeas corpus rel ief. Theseallegat ions could pr ovide grou nds for post- convicti on relief , assuming consi deration of the a llegati ons is no t barred by the applicable statute of li mitations.-5- The judg me nt of the t rial cour t dismissi ng the Defendant’ s petiti on for habeas corpus rel ief is affirmed.

____________________________________

DAVID H. WELL ES, J UDGE CONCUR:

___________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

___________________________________ JOHN K. BYERS, SENIORJUDGE