# FILED September 30, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SHVILLE JULY 1997 SES SION
JAMES H. TURNER, ) ) C.C.A . NO. 01C01-9 608-CC-00365 Appellant, ) ) HICKMAN COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. CORNELIA A . CLARK, STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus) FOR TH E APPEL LANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: JAM ES H. TURN ER, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP TCIP ANNEX, #99071 Attorney Gen eral & Repor ter Route 1 Only, TN 3714 0 LISA A. NA YLOR Attorney for the State 450 Jame s Rob erts on Pk wy. Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 JOSEPH D. BA UGH Distric t Attorney General RONA LD L. DA

VIS Asst. Dist rict Attor ney General P. O. Box 937 Franklin, TN 37065-0937

OPINION FILE D:____________________
AF FIRMED JOHN H. PE AY, Judge2 O P I N I O N
The petitioner, an inmate wit h the Department of C orrection, r eceived three concurrent

forty-five year sent e nces for two conv ictions of agg ravated ki dnapping and one convicti on of accessory before the fact to murder in the second degree. By petiti on fora writ of habeas corpus, hechallenges his restraint alleging that it is “illegal and void on the f ace o f th e rec ords .” His p etit ion wa s dism issed without a hearing by the court belo w. In this appe al as of rig ht, the petition er contends that the trial court erred in dismissinghis petitio n without an evidentiar y hearing . After consideration of the record in this cause, we find the pet itioner’s complaint to be w ithout merit and , therefore, aff irm the trial court’s acti on.

The lengthy history of this case was fullysummarized i n a previou s appeal to this Court . See Stat e v. James Howa rd Turner , No. 01C01-940 4-CR-00122, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim . App. filed September 20, 1995, at Nashv ille). Su ffice it to say that the petitioner has had at least two prior appeals in this Court along w ith a habeas corpus proceeding i n the federal system that went to the United S tates Supreme Cour t.
In this case , the petitioner alleges that his restraint is illegal and void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, because he was conv icted of charg es based on an indictment th at was dis missed, and other grounds relying on e viden tiary issues. The dismissal of thepetition by the trial judge, w ithout a hearin g, found thatall matters raised by the peti tioner had been previously litigat ed an d had been “corrected or resolved. ” The trial judg e’s order concluded that the petitioner

had made no show ing that3

he is being illegall y restr ained.
In Passarella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), this Court outlined the ci rcumstances under which habea s corpus rel ief is avai lable: It is a wel l-establis hed principl e of law that t he remedy of habeas corpus is limited in s cope as wel l as reli ef. In criminal cases, the remedy is

limited to cases w here the judg ment is void or the term o f impr isonment has ex pired . . . i f the court render ing a judg ment has jurisdiction of the person, the subject-m atter, and has the authority to make the chall enged judgment, the judgment is void able, not void; and the judgment may not be collaterally attacked in a suit for h abea s co rpus

rel ief. Passarella , 891 S.W.2d at 626-27.

The complaintsmade by the petitioner are not ones that would render the trial court judg ment void but, rather, voidable. Tennessee courts have consiste ntl y constru ed the scope of rev iew by habeas corpus v

ery str ictly. Luttrell v . State , 6 4 4 S.W.2d 408, 409 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982). Pursuant to this na rrow scope, this Court, in W illie Edward Thor nton v. Fred Raney, Warden , No. 02C01-9302-C C-00025, Lauderdale County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed January 26, 1994, at Jackson), held that erroneous jury instruction s meet none of the requirements fo r habeas corpus relief. The Court further stated t hat “t he only method of collaterall y attacki ng the judg ment because of constitutional deprivati ons occasioned b y erroneous instructi ons is by petition for post convicti on relief.”

The petitioner has

alleged nofacts that wo uld cause his convicti ons to be void or to s how th at th e ter m of his im priso nme nt ha s expi red. He me rely se eks t o have this Court reconsider the evidence and/o r weigh the credibility of witnesses. The mere conclusoryallegatio n that h is co nvictions are void, without valid support or basis, is ins uffic ient

for h abea s co rpus

rel ief.4 We affirm the trial court’s dismissal, without a hearing, of the petition in this case.

______________________________ JOHN H. PEA Y, Judge CONCUR:

______________________________ W ILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge

______________________________ JERRY L. SMI TH, Jud ge