### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 14, 200 4
FRANK W. JOHNS ON v. GL EN TUR NER , WA RD EN
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty

No. 9673 Jon Ke rry Blackwood , Judge

No. W2004-00177-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Dece m ber 3, 2004

The pe titioner, Frank W. J ohnson, pled g uilty to second deg ree murder and was sentenc ed to thirteen and one-half y ear s incar cer ation in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection. Subsequently , he filed a petition for a

writ of habe as cor

pus, alleg ing that he pled g uiltyto an illeg al sentenc e. The trial c ou rt de nie d th e pe tit ion , a nd the pe tit ion e r now app e a ls. Up on re vie w of the re c or d a ndthe pa

rt ie s’ briefs, w e af

firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion o f t h e co urt, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.
Fr ank W. J ohnson, Whi teville, Tenne ssee, Pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; B rent C. Cherry , Assitant Attorney Gene ral; and Eliz abeth T. Rice , District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
The re cord be fore us on appea l is scar ce. Reg ardle ss, in his appellate brief and in his petiti on for a w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s , th e p e ti ti o n e r c laim s th a t o n F e b ru ar y 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 , h e p le d g u il ty in the Shelby CountyCriminal Court to s econd de g re e m u rd er
. The pe titioner contends that, also on Fe bruary 25, 2000, the Shelby County Criminal Court “ac cepte d the plea a g ree ment and sente nced the [petiti oner] to a[n] eff ective 13.5 y ear

sentenc e.”
Sub se qu e ntl y , th e pe tit ion e r f ile d in the Ha

rd e ma n Co un ty Cir c uit

Cou rt a pe tit ion fo r a

writ of habe as cor

pus. I n his pe tition, the petitioner arg ues that the punishment f or second de g ree murder “ca n not be l e s s th a n 1 5 y e ar s
. ” A c c o r d in g ly h e c o n te n d s th a t h is “ p le a a g r e e me n t i s in d ir ect-2-

contra v en t i o n of express Statutory provision reg arding sentenc ing of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t of 1989, and outside the Trial Court’s jurisdiction and there fore illega l.”
Th e tr ia l c ou rt

e nte re d a n o rd e r d e nying thepe tit ion , f ini ng that the pe tit ion wa s “ no t w e lltaken.” The pe titioner now appe als this decision.
II. Ana lys is
I nitially , we note that the determination of whether to gr ant habe as cor pus relief is a question of la w. Se e Mc L a ne y

v. B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . As such, we wil l re v i ew the trial court’s f indings de novo without a presumption of correc tness. I d. Moreove r, it is the petitioner’s burden to de monstrate, by a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e, “that the sen t en ce i s v o i d or that the c on fi ne me nt i s il le g a l.” Wy a tt v . St a te , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

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

when it appe ars f

rom the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord of t h e j u d gm en t or the rec ord of the pr ocee dings that a trial court was without jurisdiction to se ntence a def endant or that a de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e 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 also Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 ( 2003). I n other wor ds, habea s corpus re lief may be soug ht only when the judg ment is void, not m ere ly voidable. See T ay lor

, 995 S. W.2 d at 83 . “ A v oid judgme nt ‘is one in which the judg ment is fac ially invalid because the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judg ment or bec ause the defe ndant’s sente nce h as expired.’ We have rec og nized that a sentenc e impos ed in direc t contrave ntion of a statute, for example, is void and illega l.” Stephenson v. Carlton , 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted).
Moreove r, we note that “[ w]it hout question, the proc edura l provisions of the habea s corpus statut e s a re ma nd a tory a nd mus t be fo llo we d scr up ulo us ly .” Ar c he r v. S ta te , 851 S.W .2d 157, 165 (T e nn . 1 99 3) . Sp e c if

ic a lly , T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 2 9- 21 -1 07 pr ov ide s: (a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, signe d either by the party for whose benef

it i t i s i n t ended, or

some person on the petitioner’s be half, a nd verifie d by aff idavit. (b ) T he pe tition sh a ll s ta te : (1 ) T hat th e pe rs on in w ho se be ha lf the w ri t is so ug ht, is i lle g a lly restra ined of liberty , and the pe rson by wh om and place wher e re str a ined, me nti on ing the na me of su c h p e rs on , if

kn ow n, a nd , if unknown, desc ribi ng the per son with as much particularity as pr a c tic able ; (2 ) T he c a us e or pr e te ns e of su c h r e str a int

a c c or din g to thebe st-3- information of the a

pplicant, and if it be by virtue of a ny

leg al proce ss, a copy

there of shall be a n n exed, or a satisfa ctory rea son g ive n f or its abs e nc e ; (3) That th e le g a li ty

o f th e r e s tr a in t h a s n o t a lr e a d y b e e n a d ju d g ed upon a prior pro ce ed i n g o f the same char acte r, to the best of the applicant’ s knowledg e and be lief; and (4) That it is first application for the writ, or, if a pre vious application ha s b e e n ma de , a c op y of the pe tit ion a ndpr oc e e din g s th e re on sh a ll be produced, or satisfactory rea sons be g iven for the failure so to do. The pe titioner failed to comply with all of the require ments of filing a petition for a writ of habea s corpus. Of

particula r importance , the petitioner failed to inc lude in his petition a copy of the judgme nt from which he seeks r elief. See J ohn C. Tomlins on v. State, No. M2001-02152-CCA-R3- CO, 2002 WL 1400051, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Nashville June 28, 2002). Additionally , a copy of the jud g me nt o f c on vic tio n w a s n ot i nc lud e d in the re c or d o n a pp e a l. T he re for e , th is c ou rt is unable to disce rn the off

ense to which the petitioner pl ed, the nature of hi s plea, or the leng th of the s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d

. T h u s , t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s f a i l e d t o m e e t h i s b u r d e n o f e s t ab l i s h i n g b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that he suf fer s under a n illega l sentence

. III. Conclusi on Given the paucity

of evidence before this court, we conclude that the j udg ment of t he trial court must be af

firmed.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE