### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 13, 200 4 ROB IN M cN EAL VA NHO OSE v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardin County No. 7797 C. Cr eed Mc Ginley, Judge

No. W2003-02176-C CA-R 3-CO - F iled Septem ber 17, 2004

The de fendant, Robin McNeal Vanhoose, appe als the trial court’s dismiss al of his motion to correc t illega l sentence . The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or, in the a lternative, to a ffirm the dis mis sa l by

the tria l c ou rt

pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f the Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls. Upon re viewing the re cord, the defe ndant’s brief, and the State’s motion and brief , we a ffirm the tria l court’s dismissal of the de fendant’s motion to correc t illegal sentence

. 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 A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f theCo ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivered t h e o pinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.
Robin McNeal Vanhoose, CCA/SC CF, Clifton, Tennessee , Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; John H

. Ble dsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; G. Robert R ad ford, District Attorne y Gene ral; and John W . Overton, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

F AC TS
The de fendant was convic ted o f aggravated a ssault, a Class C felony , in 1999 and was sentenc ed as a

Rang e I I , multipl e offender to eig ht y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. This court aff irmed on direc t appea l. State v. Robin McNeal Vanhoose, No. W19 9 9

- 0 0 7 0 8

- CCA- R3-CD, 2000 WL 1051856 (Tenn. Crim. App. July28, 2000), perm. to appeal de nied (Te nn. Mar. 19, 2001)

. On J une 23, 2003 , n ea rl y four y ear s later, the de fendant filed a pro s e motion to correc t illega l sentence , s t at i n g t hat it was pursua nt to Rul e 36 of the Tenne ssee Rules of CriminalR ul e 3 6 pro vi d es: “ C l eri cal m i st akes i n judgm ent s, o rders, o r o t her p art s o f t he reco rd and er rors i n t he reco rd 1 ari si ng f rom ove rs i ght o r o m i ss i o n m ay b e co rr ect ed b y the co urt a t a ny ti m e and a f t er such noti ce, i f

any , as t he co urt or der s . ” T en n . R. Cr i m. P. 36. -2- Procedur e. I n an attac hed aff idavit, the defe ndant swore that “his prior rec ords wer e illega lly used 1 ag ainst him” and “the jury was wr ong fully

char g ed re sulting in an illeg al sentenc e.” Further, “ the trial court lac ked jurisdiction in which to i m pose a judg ment of convic tion and there fore the conviction is void under law” and “the trial cou rt ’s sentenc e wa s also obtained in direc t co n t ra v en tion of Rule 609, Tennesse e Rules of Evidenc e.” O n Aug ust 19, 2003, the trial court e nte reda n o rd e r d ism iss ing thede fe nd a nt’ s mo tio n b e c aus e it w a s u nti me ly a ndso ug ht t o r a ise c la ims wh ic h s ho uldha ve be e n b ro ug ht i n a dir e c t a pp e a l:
This cause came to be heard o n Aug ust 4, 2003 upon the Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Correc t I lleg al Sentence , and I t app e ars to the Co urt that Pe tit ion e r’ s Mo tio n atte mpt s to litigate matters which should ha ve been part of a direc t appea l and the Court is now without j urisdiction to hear said matter, and I t appea rs also that the period for

reque sting Post-Conviction Relief has e x pired. I t is, therefor e, orde red that Petitioner’ s Motion be and her eby is dismi ssed.
F ro m th a t or de r, thede fe nd a nt n ow app e a ls.
AN AL YSI S As an initial matter, we note that the def endant se eks to appe al as of ri gh t fr o m t h e trial court' s order

dismiss ing his motion for corre ction of an ill eg al sentenc e. Howe ver, “ Rule 3(b) of the Tenne ssee Rules of Appellate Procedur e does not permit a dire ct appe al of a trial court’ s dismis sal of a motion to corr ect an illega l sentence .” State v. Erne st Euge ne Thomas, No. E2000-02613- CCAR3- CD , 2 00 1 WL

87 35 24 , at *1 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. Au g . 3, 20 01 ); se e Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 3 (b ); State v. Mic ha e l S. Sta c y , N o. E2 00 3- 01 06 2- CCA -R 3- CD , 20 03 WL 22 33 09 13 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. Oc t. 13, 2003); State v. Guillermo Matias J uan, No. 03C01-9812-CR-00443, 1999 WL 642926 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug . 25, 1999), perm. to appeal de nied (Te nn. J an. 31, 2000). The prope r method for a defenda nt to attack an illeg al or void sentenc e is throug h a petition for ha beas c orpus re lie f, thede nia l of wh ic h b y a tria l c ou rt

c a n b e directl y

app e a le d to thi s c ou rt

. See Te nn. R. App. P. 3(b) ; T enn. Code Ann. § 29-21-127; Cox v. State, 53 S.W .3d 287, 294 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). The de fendant has failed to f ollow the statutory proce dures for filing a petition fo r h abe a s c or

pu s re lie f, a nd we wi ll not tr e a t his a pp e a l a s su c h. I n r arec ir c ums ta nc e s, wh e n a Rul e 3 appea l is not available to a de fendant, this court ma y t re at an a ppeal a s a petition for writ of certiorari, now c odified at Te nnessee Code Annotated section 27-8-101. See Cox , 53 S.W .3d at 294; M ic h a e l S

. St a c y , 2 0 0 3 WL 2 2 3 3 0 9 1 3 , a t *1 ; E r n e s t E u g e n e T h o ma s , 2 0 0 1 WL 8 7 3 5 2 4 , a t *2

. We-3-

ha ve pr e vio us ly

e mph a size d, ho we ve r, that th e writ of c e rt ior ari is “ lim ite d” a ndthat “ app e a ls v ia c e rti or ar i should rare ly

be g rante d to revie w m otions that assert sentenc ing infirmities which do not rise to the leve l of illeg ality or voidness.” Cox , 53 S.W .3d at 294. Even if w e we re to indulg e the defe ndant and tre at his appea l as a pe tition for writ of certiorari and there fore rea ch the merits of the c a se , w e c on c lud e that th e iss ue s r a ise d b y de fe nd a nt a

rewi tho ut m e ri t. The re cord makes i t clea

r t hat t he defenda nt’s sentenc e is neither illeg al nor void. He was c on vic te d o f a g g ra vate d a ssa ult , a Cla ss C fe lon y , an d s e nte nc e d a s a Rang e I I , mu lti ple of

fe nd e r t o e ig ht y ears in the De pa

rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. Th e de fe nd a nt w a s p ro pe rl y c la ssi fi e d a s a

mul tip le offe n d er based on the fac t that he had two prior Class E felony convictions for driving a s a motor ve hic le ha

bitua l of fe nd e r i n 1 99 4 a ndon e Cla ss D fe lon y c on vic tio n f

or third degree bu rg lary

in 1980. Pursuant to T ennesse e Code Annotated section 40-35-106( a), a “multiple of fen d er ” i s “a defe ndant who has r ece ived: (1) [a] mini mum of two (2 ) butnot more than four (4) prior felony convictions within the conviction class, a hi gh er cl as s , o r within the next t wo (2) lowe r fe lony classes[.]” Bec ause the defe ndant was c onvicted of a Class C felony , all three of the prior felony convictions could be use d to c lassify the def endant a s a multiple offende r. In addition, Tennesse e Code Annotated se ction 40-35-106( c) pr ovides that “[a] def endant who is found by

the court bey ond a re asonable doubt to be a multiple offende r shall re ceive a sente nce w ithin R ang e I I .” The sentenc ing r ang e for

a Class C felony , Rang e I I , multipl e off ender is six to ten y ear s. Clearly the trial court wa s following the statutory mandates in de termining that the def endant wa s a multiple offende r and setting his sentence at eig ht y ear s. The de fendant also as s erts that the “ jury was wr ong fully

char g ed re sulting in an illeg al sentenc e” and that the trial court improperly allowed the use of his previous convic tions to i mpeac h him pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 60 9, Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f E vid e nc e . T he reare se ve ra l pro ble ms with th is c la im. F ir st, the re c or d p re se nte d to us on thi s “app e a l” do e s not co ntain a tr a ns c ri pt o f the tria l pr oc e e din g s, so we a re una ble to determine what the jury instructions wer e or w hat evidenc e wa s used to impeach the def endant. One of the elementary duties of a defe ndant i s to prepa re an adequate record in orde r to allow meaning ful revie w on appe al. See Ernest Eug ene Thomas, 2001 WL 873524, at *2 (c iting Tenn. R. A pp. P. 24( b); State v. Bunc h, 646 S.W .2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1983) ; State v. Roberts, 755 S.W. 2d83 3, 83 6 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 88 )) . Se c on d, “ [i]n th e abs e nc e of a n a de qu a te re c or d, thi s Court must presume that the t rial court’s ruling was supporte d by the evidenc e.” I d. (citing State v. Bibbs, 806 S.W.2d 786, 790 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)). Most importantly , incorre ct jury instructions and impeac hment evidenc e ar e properly attacke d in a motion for a new trial and on dire ct appe al, not in a “ mot ion to co rr e c t ille g a l se nte nc e .” Se e Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 3 (e ). Ac c or din g ly , w e c on sid e r the se iss ue s w a ive d f

or the y we re no t br ou g ht o n d ir e c t app e a l.
Even if the de fendant’s curr ent motion to corr ect illeg al sentenc e we re c onstrued as a petition for post-c onviction relief, hefailed to follow the proce dures set forth in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 40-30-101 et s eq. for post-conviction petitions. Further , Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40 -3 0- 10 2( a ) p ro vid e s a

on e -y e ar s ta tut e of

lim itatio ns fo r p ost- c on vic tio n r e lie f. B e c aus e his application for permission to appea l his conviction to the Tennessee Supreme Court wa s denied on Ma rc h 1 9, 20 01 , th e de fe nd a nt w ou ld h a ve ha d u nti l Ma rc h 1 9, 20 02 , to fi le a pet it io n for po st--4-

conviction re lief. I nstead, he filed a motion to corr ect illeg al sentenc e on June 23, 2003, well outside of the one -y ear

statute of limitations for a post-convic tion petition. We, theref

ore, a ffirm the trial court’s dismissal of the def endant’ s motion to correc t illega l sentenc e, pursuant to TennesseeCourt of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE