### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 22, 200 5
DWIGHT K. PR ITCHA RD v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 3612 Cheryl Blackburn, Ju dge

No. M2005- 00594-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Dece m ber 16, 2005

Ha y es , Da v i d G. , J u d ge, d i s s en t i n g. The Petitioner, appa

rently ag g rieve d that his se ntence s wer e too le nient, now seeks to corre ct the er ror by the remedy of habeas corpus. Be cause the error complained of i s non-jurisdictional, I would aff irm dismis sal of the pe tition.
The trial court’s review of a writ for ha beas c orpus re lief is g uided by consideration of the fo llo wi ng fu nd a me nta l princ ipl e s: The writ of hab eas cor pus reac hes jurisdictional error onl y. The writ does not lie to c or r e c t m e r e e r r or s and ir r e gul ar it ie s c om m it te d by a c our t th at is a c ti ng wi thin i ts jurisdiction. Sta te ex re l. A ng lin v . Mitc he ll , 575 S.W .2d 284, 287 (Tenn. 1979) (e mphasis added)

. A pe ti ti on fo rhabe as c or pus r e lie f m ay onl y be gr ant e d when the ju dgm e nt is sho wn to be vo id rathe r th an m e r e ly v oid abl e
. State v. Taylor , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. Sinc e onl y avo id j udgm e nt m ay be at ta c ked b y th e r e m e dy o f habe as c or pus, the question p rese nted is alw ays one of ju risdiction

. An gli n , 575 S.W .2d at 287 (empha sis added). A j udgm e nt

is v oid onl y whe n it

appe ar s upo n t he fac e of the ju dgm e nt orth e r e c or d of t he p rocee ding s upo n whic h t he ju dgm e nt is r e nde r e d t hat

th e c on vic ti ng c our t wa s wit hout ju r isdi c ti on o raut hor it y t o s e nt e nc e th e de fend ant or that t he defend ant’s sentencehas expired

. Arc he r v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) (empha sis added).
I t is unc on te ste d th at th e tr ia l c ou rt , w hic h impo se d th e c ha lle ng e d s e nte nc e s, ha d b oth subject matter jurisdiction ove r the indicted offe nses and jurisdiction ove r the pe rson, the Petitioner. The instant claim is predic ated upon the jurisdictional issue that the sentenc ing c ourt was without auth ority to im po se c on c ur re nt s e nte nc e s. “ ‘Jurisd ic tio n’ in the se ns e he re us e d, is n ot l imi te d to-2-

jurisd ic tio n o f the pe rs on or of the su bje c t matte r b ut a lso inc lud e s la wf ul a uth ority of the c ou rt to rende r the particula

r order or judg ment wher eby

the petitioner ha s been imprisoned.” An gli n , 575 S.W .2d at 287.
The Petitioner’s c halleng ed sente nces in this case stem fr o m a g uiltyplea pur suant to the terms of a neg otiated plea a g ree ment.
T h e ru l e h a s l o n g b e e n f i r m l y e s t ab l i s h e d a n d s e t t l e d t h a t a p l e a o f g u i l t y, understanding ly

and voluntarily

enter ed on the a dvice of counsel, c onstitut es an admission of all fac ts alleg ed and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional and proce dural defe cts and c onstitut ional infirmities, if any , in any prior stag e of the proce eding

. Lawrence v. M

ullins , 4 49 S.W. 2d22 4, 22 9 ( Te nn . 1 96 9) ; Sta te ex re l. Edmonson v. He nderson , 421 S.W. 2d63 5 ( Te nn . 1 96 7) ; Ree d v. He nderson , 385 F.2d 995 ( 6 Cir. 1967). th

I t r emains, howeve r, that a sentenc e imposed in dir ect contra vention of a s t at u t e, i.e. , “without jurisdiction or authority ” to act, is illega l and, thus , void. See Stephenson v. Carlton , 28 S.W.3d91 0, 91 1 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) . T his is s o b e c aus e , w hil e a c on sti tut ion a l or

pr oc e du ra l de fe c t is waiva ble by the de fe nd a nt, the de fe nd a nt ma y no t, ho we ve r, waive a jurisd ic tio na l de fe c t be c aus e the defe ndant is w ithout authority to c onfer jurisdiction upon the court wher e none exists. Thus, as m a n i f e s t e d b y An gli n and Archer , jur isd ic tio n is the c orne rs ton e of a ny ha be c la im

. As rec og nized in Mc Con ne ll v . S tate , 1 2 S. W.3 d 7 95 , 7 98 (T e nn . 2 00 0) , a ple a -b arg a ine d s e nte nc ing de pa rtur e in express contradic tion of our sentenc ing la w is non- jurisdictional and does not void the sentenc e. See als o H ic k s v . S tate , 945 S.W .2d 706, 707 (Tenn. 1997) (g uiltyplea waives irre g ularity as to offe nder classification or relea se elig ibilit y ). It follows that if statutorily imposed sentencing classifications and re lease elig ibilit y

criterion are non-jurisdictional and a re subjec t to waiver, a

rule of pr ocedur e permitting the imposit ion of consecutive sentences may equally be wa ived upon entry of a voluntary and knowing g uilty plea. The result here is that the Petitioner’s pleas of g uilty , althoug h sufficie nt to permit waiver

of all constitutional infirmities, are somehow insufficient to permit waiv er of a proce dural rule even thoug h the Petitioner rec eived the clea r benefit of t he plea

barg ain. I g noring t h e f a c tt h a tt h e P e t i t i o n e r

i n t h i s c a s e e x p r e s s l y w a i v e d a l l p r o c e d u r a l c l a i m s b y h i s p l e a s o f g u i l t y, any sentenc ing e rror

implicated, at best, is an e rror in the jurisdictional exercise of the trial court’ s sentenc ing authority , as opposed to a se ntence wher e the se ntencing court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority

to act. See State e

x rel. Holbrook v . Bomar , 364 S.W .2d 887 (Tenn. 1963) . As such, the Petitioner’s sentenc ing issue pr esents a voida ble, as opposed to a

void issue, which is not cog nizable in a habea s corpus proc eeding . The voidable nature of the Petitioner’s sentenc e, if not waive d, c ou ld h a ve be e n r e me die d by a po st- c on vic tio n c ha lle ng e . O bv iou sly , th e Pe tit ion e r c ho se to ignor e the r emedy , as it would have r esulted in an incr ease d sentenc e of t h i rt y -t wo y ears. The c on se qu e nc e of

the se ve n- y e ar d e la y

is that th e Pe tit ion e r i s n ow ba rr e d f ro m any att a c k o f h is sentenc es. Finding no issue for r emand, I would aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt’s orde r of dis mis sa l.

________________________________ Da v i d G. Ha y es , J u d ge-3-