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

ADRIAN WILKER SON v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 95-B-856 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge

No. M2003- 01385-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Novem ber 12, 2004

The Petitioner, Adrian Wilkerson, appea ls from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habe as corpus. The State has filed a mot ion reque sting that the Court a ffirm the tria l court’s de nial of re lief pu rs ua nt to Rul e 20 , Rul e s of the Cou rt of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls. We fi ndthe Sta te ’s mot ion ha s me ri t. Acc ording ly , the motion is gra nted and the a ppeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.
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

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J , joined.
Adrian Wilkerson, pro se , Nashville, Tenne ssee.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L

. B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

Acc ording to the Petitioner’s brief , on Fe bruary

29, 1996, a Davidson Countyjury convicted the P etitioner of the foll owing offe nses: (1) especia lly ag g ravated robbery ; (2) first deg ree murder;
a nd(3 ) the ft

of pr op e rt y ov e r $10 00

. Th e Pe tit ion e r wa s se nte nc e d to lif e imp ri so nme nt f

or the fi rs t de g re e mur de r c on vic tio n. Th e Pe tit ion e r w a s se nte nc e d to tw e nty fi ve y ears fo r the e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated robbe ry

conviction and four y ear s for the theft of property conviction, both to be serve d
c on se c uti ve ly . T his Cou rt a ff ir me d the c on vic tio ns on dir e c t a pp e a l, b ut m od if

ie d th e se nte nc e to an ef fec tive sentenc e of life plus twenty five y ea rs. Howe ver, the rec ord does not conta in any documentation re g arding the judg ments ag ainst the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a petition for p o s t -conviction relief, a lleg ing that he re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. The tria l court denied relief

, and this Court aff

irmed the judgme nt on appea l. See Wilkerson v. State, No. M2001--2-

02295-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 W L 1558521 (Tenn. Crim. App., at N ashville, J uly 16, 2002), pe rm . to appeal denied

(Tenn. D ec. 9, 2002)

. On May 13, 2003, the P etitioner filed, pro se, a petiti on for writ of habea s corpus re lief in the Davidson County

Criminal Court. He contends that the tria l court er red by failing to instruct the jury on lesser- included off

enses. F urther, the Petitioner asserts that he rece ived i neff ective assistance of
c ou ns e l. O n M a y 16 , 200 3, the tr ia l cou rt iss ue d an or de r dis mis sin g the Pe tit ion e r’ s p e tit ion fo r w ri t of habe as cor

pus. The Petitioner filed his notice of appea l in the trial court on June 3, 2003.
The g rounds upon which a writ of habea s corpus may be issued ar e very

narr ow. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only when it appe ars fr om the fa c e of the jud g me nt o r r e c or d th a t e ith e r the c on vic tin g c ou rt wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n to convict or se ntence the petitioner, or t h e p et i t i o ner’ s sentence has expired. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W. 2d157, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v. Sta te , 8 33 S.W. 2d60 , 6 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . In o the r w or ds , habea s corpus re lief may

only be soug ht w hen the judg ment is void, not m ere ly voidable. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. The P etitioner has failed to set forth any alleg ations that would indicate that the trial court lacke d jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e him or that he is unlawf ully “re strained” for a

sentenc e that has expired. Petitioner’s claim that his c onvictions a re void be cause the trial court f ailed to instruct the jury on a va ri e ty of le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e s d oe s not wa

rr a nt ha be a s cor pu s re lie f. I f thi s c la im had merit, it m ay

rende r the c onviction voidable, not void. See Vernon v. State, No. M2003-02268- CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL 1778480 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug . 9, 2004), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. O ct. 11, 2004); see also Robbins v. State, No. 03C019903CR00095, 1999 W L 813484 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, O ct. 5, 1999). Further, the Petitioner’s claim of ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel is not an appr opriate c laim for habe as cor pus becaus e, i f proven, it would re nder the challeng ed judgme nts voida ble rathe r than void. See Passare lla v. State, 891 S.W .2d 6 1 9 , 6 27 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. The re cord doe s not contain any evidenc e to support the Petitioner’s c ontention and, base d upon the re cord be fore us, there is n o p ro of that Petitioner’s sente nce ha s expi red. Petitioner ha s failed t o es t ab l i s h by

a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e that his conviction is void or his term of imprisonment has expi red.

Ac c or din g ly , th e Sta te ’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 wi th R ule 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE