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

LOU IS TY RON E R OBINS ON v. R ICKY BELL , Ward en

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 06C482 Walte r C. K urtz, Judge

No. M2006- 00869-CCA -R3-P C - F iled October 26, 2006

This matter is befor e the Court upon the S tate’s moti on to aff irm the j udg ment of t he habe as cor pus

c ou rt by me mor a nd um o pin ion pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 20 of the Rul e s o f the Cou rt

of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls. The Petitioner has a

ppeale d the habe as cor

pus court’s or der dismissing the petition f or writ of habe as corpus. Upon a

revie w of the r ecor d in this case , we a re pe rsuade d that the habe as cor pus court wa s

corr ect in dismissing the ha beas c orpus petition and that this case mee ts the criteria for a ffirma nce pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. Acc ording ly
, the State’s motion is gr anted a nd the judg ment of the ha beas c orpus court is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule of t he Cr im ina l C our t o f Appe als

Robert W. W edeme y er, J ., delivere d the opi nion of the c ourt, in which Da vid H. Welles and J erry L . Smit h, J J ., joined.

L ouis Tyrone Robinson, Nashville, Te nnessee , Pro Se.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; B e njamin A. B a ll, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J ohnson, I I I , Distri ct At t o rney Gene ral; Michae l Rohli ng , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral; for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION

The Petitioner is curr ently incar cer ated serv i n g a sente nce of forty y ear s as a pe rsistent offe nder on a

second de g ree murder c onviction to which he pl ed gu iltyon April 26, 1993. The Pe tit ion e r ha s su bmi tte d mul tip le pe tit ion s fo r writs of ha be a s c or pu s, the la te st in 20 04

. Se e L ou is Ty rone Robins on v. Be ll, No. M 2003-02772-CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL 2290485 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oc t. 12, 2004), perm. to app. denie d (Tenn. Jan. 18, 2005). I n the cur rent pe tition, t he Pe tit ion e r re qu e sts re lie f be c a us e the re is a fa c ia l de fi c ie nc y in the ind ic tme nt a nd /or the jud g me nt.-2-

Add it io n a ll y , th e Pe ti ti o n e r c la im s th e ju d g me n ts w e r e o b tain e d a g a in s t h im v ia a lt e r ed cour t

rec ords, fra

ud, and criminal conspiracy o n t h e p ar t of the judg e, court clerk, D istrict Attorney ’s office , his attorney , and his bail bonding company . Also, the Petitioner alleg es he ha s been de nied du e pr oc e ss o f l a w. At

the tr ia l c ou rt , th e Sta te arg ue d th e Pe tit ion e r d id no t e sta bli sh e ith e r a

vo id jud g me nt o r an e xpir e d s e nte nc e . F ind ing the Sta te ’s mot ion we ll tak e n, the tr ia l c ou rt su mma ri ly denied the pe tition.

I n T e nn e sse e , “ [a]n y

pe rs on imp riso ned or

re str a ine d o f h is l ibe rt y , u nd e r any pr e te ns e wh a tso e ver, e xce pt [tho se he ld u nd e r f e de ra l auth ority ], may

pr os e c ute a

writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and r estraint.” Churc h v. State, 987 S.W .2d 855, 857 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (citing State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 424 S.W .2d 186, 189 (Tenn. 1 9 6 8 ))

. A wr i t of habe as cor pus may be g rante d only

when the pe titioner has established lac k of jurisd ic tio n f

or the or de r o f c on fi ne me nt o r that he is oth e rw ise e nti tle d to imm e diate re le a se be c a us e of the e xpir a tio n of his se nte nc e

. Se e Us se ry v. Av e ry , 4 32 S.W. 2d65 6 ( Te nn . 1 96 8) ; State e x re l. Wade v

. Nor vel l, 44 3 S. W.2 d 8 39 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 69 ). Th e bu rd e n is on the Pe tit ion e r t o establish that the judg ment is void or t hat t he sentence has expired. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 38 1 S. W.2 d 2 90 , 2 91 -9 1 ( Te nn . 1 964). A “ ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion ma y

be dis mis se d w ith ou t a he ari ng , a ndwi tho ut the app oin tme nt of c ou ns e l fo r a he ari ng ” if the pe tit ion do e s no t a lle g e fa c ts showing the Petitioner is entitled to relief

. State ex rel. Edmondson v. He nderson, 421 S.W.2d 635, 636 (Tenn. 1967) (citing State ex rel. By rd v. B omar, 381 S.W.2d 280 (Tenn. 1964))

.

The Petitioner is curr ently incar cer ated on a second de g ree murder c onviction, obtained by a g uiltyplea. See L ouis Ty rone Robinson, No. M2003-02772-CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL 2290485, at *1-2 (discussing extensive procedur al history ). Howe ver, the P et i tioner has only pointed to a
sentenc ing he aring from a se parate prior c onviction to support his claim that he is entitled to habe as

c or pu s r e lie f. Th us , th e Pe tit ion e r h a s n ot b ro ug ht f orth a sin g le pie c e of evi den ce w hic h w ou ld

su pp ort hi s cla ims . T he Pe tit ion e r’ s se nte nc e is f a c ia lly va lid , a s p re vio us ly

de te rm ine d, a ndhis claims that there was a criminal conspirac y ag ainst him c ould only be prove n by

proof f rom outside the re cord. Thus, the Petitioner’s claims ar e not proper ly broug ht via a writ of habea s corpus. Eve n if the cla ims were m er i torious, they would mere ly

rende r the judg ment voidable, not void. See Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). Thus, the claims made by the Petitioner are proper as post-convic tion claims. The post-conviction st atute of limit ations has, however, long si nce r un. The trial c ourt corr ectly found that the Petitioner prove d nothing whic h would make his judg ment void.

Upon due consi deration of the pleading s, the rec ord, and the applicable law, the c ourt conclude s that the Petitioner has not established that he is e ntitled to habeas c orpus re lief base d on

a vo id j ud g me nt. Ac c or din g ly , th e S tat e’s mot ion is g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is

a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e to R ule 20 , Ru le of the Cou rt

of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE