### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE
JO SEPH B. THOM PS ON v. R ICKY BELL , WA RD EN Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. C49,575 R. Je rry Be ck, Judge

No. E2005-00005-CC A-R3- HC - F iled October 7, 2005

The pe titioner, J oseph B . Thompson, filed a pe tition for a writ of ha beas c orpus in the Sullivan Coun t y C ri m inal Court. The trial court summarily dismiss ed the pe tition for failure to mee t proce dural re quirements, which dismissal the petitioner appeals. The S tate filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial c ourt’s denia l of relief pursuant to Rule 2 0 , R u l es o f the Court of Criminal Appea ls. Upon review of the re cord and the parties’ brief s, we c onclude that the pe tition was prope rly

dismiss ed

. Ac co rd i ng ly , the State’s motion is granted and the judg ment of the trial court is af firmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt is Affi rm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., joined. Kristi M. Davis, Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, J oseph B . Thompson. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; and Michell e C h apman Mc I ntire, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
I n 2001, the petitioner wa s convi ct ed by a jury in the Sulli van County

Criminal Court of a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

a nda g g ra vate d kidn app ing , a ndhe re c e ive d a tot a l e ff e c tiv e se nte nce of f

orty y ears . T hi s co urt affi rm ed h is con vi cti on s an d s ent ences on di rectapp eal . S ee S tat e v. J o sep h B. Thompson, No. E2002-00061-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 1202979, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Ma r. 17, 2003). The pe titioner was inca rce rate d in Davidson County

. There afte r, while serving the afor eme n t i o n ed sentence, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habe as cor

pus in the Sull ivan County Criminal Court. He alleg ed that in 1990, he was convicted o f a g g r a v a te d a s s a u lt , a Cl a s s C f e lo n y , a n d h e r e c e iv e d a tw o
- y e ar s e n te n c e
. The petitioner ar g ues that the statutory minimum sentenc e he could have r ece ived for that offense wasSee T enn. C o d e A nn. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 1 2 (a)( 3 ) ( 2 0 0 3 ). 1
-2- thr e e y e a rs ; a c c or din g ly , h is s e ntenc e for agg ra vate d a ssa ult wa s v oid

. As pr oo f s up po rt ing his

1 alleg ations, the petitioner included w ith his petit ion a “TO MI S ” l etter f rom the Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Corre ction, showing his conviction and the leng th of the ac companying se ntence

. The State a nswere d, contending that the petitioner had not me t the formal r equire ments of a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion

. Spe c if

ic a lly , the State no te d tha t the pe tit ion e r fa ile d to file his pe tit ionin Da vid so n Cou nty , the c ou rt c los e st to wh e re the pe tit ion e r w a s in c arc e rate d. Ad dit ion a lly , th e Sta te c la ime d th a t th e pe tit ion e r d id n ot atta c h a c op y of the c on te ste d ju dg me nt wi th his pe tit ion , n or did he verify the petition by

aff idavit. The pe titioner responde d that he filed in the convicting court because , as a lay man, he was unawa re that he must file within the court closest to him. He a lso responded that he did not include his judgment of c onviction because, despite his ef forts, he w as unable to obtai n a copy of the judgme nt. Finally , the petit ioner alleg ed that he did not verify the petit ion by aff idavit because he had no money

and “w ith no money

y o u ca n get n othing [notarized].” The petitioner a lso filed a

“ Mo tio n to Al e rt

the Cou rt ,” in w hic h h e a lle g e d th a t he had att emp ted to ob ta in a c op y of his judgme nt of conviction to no avail. The petitioner also submitt ed a verified af fidavit to acc ompany his ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion

. F ina lly , the pe tit ion e r a lle g e d that he fi le d inthe c on vic tin g c ou rt be c aus e that court ha d all of the re levant re cords c oncerning the petitioner’s sente nce. Up on c on sid e ratio n of the mot ion s, the tr ia l cou rt fo un d tha t th e Sta te ’s mot ionto d ism iss was we ll taken. Thus, t he court dismiss ed the pe titioner’s petition for habe as cor pus relief without conducting an evide ntiary hearing. T he petitioner now appea ls this di smissal.
The de termination of whether to gra nt habea s corpus re lief is a question of law . McL aney v. B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001). As such, we will review the trial court’ s findings de novo without a presumption of cor rec tness. I d. Moreove r, it is the petitioner’s burde n to demonstrate, by a pr e po nd e ranc e of

the e vid e nc e , “ that th e se nte nc e is v oid or that the c on fi ne me nt is i lle g a l.” Wy a tt v. Sta te , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

. Article I , § 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es an a ccuse d the rig ht to seek habe as corpus r elief. See Tay lor v. Sta te , 99 5 S. W.2 d 7 8, 83 (Te nn . 1 99 9) . H ow e ve r, “ [s]uc h r e lie f i s available only

when it appe ars from the face of the j udg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s that a tria l co u rt was without jurisdiction to sentence a def endant or that a def

endant’ s sentence of imp ri so nme nt o r o the r r e str a int ha s e xpir e d. ” Wy a tt

, 24 S.W .3d at 322; see a lso Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 ( 2000). I n other wor ds, habea s corpus re lief may be sou gh t only

when the judg ment is v o id , n o t m e r e ly

v o id ab le

. T ay lor, 9 9 5 S

. W.2d at 83. “A void judgme nt ‘is one in which the judgme nt is facially

invalid because the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judg ment or be c a us e the de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d. ’ We ha ve re c og nize d th a t a se nte nc e imp os e d in direc t contrave ntion of a st atute, for example, is void and illeg al.” Stephenson v. Carlton , 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted).-3-

Th e pr oc e du ra l r e qu ir e me nts fo r a pet it ion f

or ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f a

re c on ta ine d in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 29-21-107 ( 2000). “Without question, the procedur al provisions of the habea s corpus statutes a re ma ndatory

and must be followed sc rupulously .” Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993) . Our re view of the rec ord re veals that a lthough the pe titioner verifie d his application for habea s corpus relief by including an aff

idavit with a copy

of his petition which he attached to his “Motion to Alert the Court,” he nevertheless failed to include his judgment of convic t i o n wi th his petiti on. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-107(a ) and ( b)(2) . Additionally , the petitioner fa iled to file his petition in t he court closest to him. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21- 105 (2000). Thus, the trial court was authorized to summarily dismiss the habe as cor

pus petition.
Moreove r, it appea

rs that the petitioner doe s not contest the leg ality of his 1990 c onviction for a g g ravated assault, mer ely the sentenc e imposed. However, the rec ord before us reflec ts that the petitioner has a lrea dy

serve d the conteste d sentenc e. The pe titioner is curre ntly serving a sente nce for a differ ent conviction. Our supreme court has rec ently held that “a person is not ‘re strained of lib e rt y ’ for pu rp os e s o f the ha be a s c or pu s st a tut e un le ss the c ha lle ng e d ju dg me nt i tse lf imp os e s a restra int upon the petitioner’s fr eedom of action or movement.” Hickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16, 23 (Tenn. 2004) . There fore , as the pe titioner’s liberty is no longe r re strained b y t h e contested sentenc e, he may

not seek ha

beas c orpus re lief fr om that sentence

. Finally , we note that the “TOMI S” report the petitioner included in the rec ord indicate s that the conteste d sentenc e wa s imposed in 1990 for an offe nse which occur red on J uly 28, 1989. The 19 89 S ente nc ing Re fo rm

Ac t, w hic h p ro vid e s th a t th e min imu m se nte nc e fo r a Cla ss C fe lon y

is three y ear s, did not g o into e ffe ct until Nove mber 1, 1989. See Tenn. Code Ann

. § 4 0 -3 5-112, Sentencing Commi ssion Com ments (1990). Thus, the pe titioner’s sentenc e wa s g overne d by the Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t of 1982. As s uch, the a ppellant’s Class C felony conviction for ag g ravated assault wa s punishable by a sentenc ing rang e not le ss than two nor more tha n ten y ear s incar cer ation. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-2- 101(d) ( 1988). Erg o, the petitioner would not be e ntitled to relief on the merits of his claim.
Acc ording ly , the State’s motion is granted. The judgme n t o f the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE