### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE
WAY NE E. MITC HELL v. R ICKY BELL , WA RD EN Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 91-S-816 Seth W. Nor m an, Jud ge

No. M2005- 00599-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Septem ber 23, 2005

The De fendant, Way ne E. Mitchell, appe als from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition seeking habea s corpus re lief. The State has filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court’ s dismiss al of the petition pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of t he C ourt of Criminal Appea ls. The State’s motion is g rante d. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim . App. R.
D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

The pe tition for habea s corpus re lief alleg es that the De fendant, Way ne E. Mitchell, wa s convicted of

ag g ravated ra

pe and ag g ravated burg lary and on Mar ch 26, 1992 wa s sentence d to an eff ective te rm of twenty -two y ear s. He is serving his sentence in the Depa rtment of Corre ction.
The De fendant’s arg ument in his petiti on and on appea l is that he is entitled to habea s corpus relief beca use his se ntence was imposed under the Tenne ssee Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, which he alleg es is unconstitutional in view of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct . 2531 (2004). He thu s a lle g e s that his se nte nc e wa s imp os e d in vio la tio n of his ri g ht to a jury tr ia l a s se t f

orth i n Blakely

. Article 1, se ction 15 of the Tenne ssee Constitution guar antee s the rig ht to seek habe as cor pus relief and Te nnessee Code Annotated se ctions 29-21-2 0 1 et seq. c odify the applica

ble proc edure s for se eking a writ. Ho we v er , t he g rounds upon which our law provide s relief

are very narr ow. Tay lor v. Sta te , 99 5 S.W. 2d 78 , 83 (T e nn
. 19 99 ). Ha be a s c or pu s re lie f is a va ila

ble in T e nn e sse e on ly-2-

when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt is render ed that (1) the convicting court was without jurisdiction or authorityto sentence a def endant; or ( 2) the de fendant’s sentenc e has e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). Thus, the g rounds upon which habea s corpus relief will be g rante d are very narr ow. State v. Ritc hie , 20 S.W. 3d62 4, 63 0 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) . It is pe rm iss ibl e fo r a tr ia l c ou rt

to s umm ari ly dismi s s a p et i t ion for habe as cor pus relief , without the appointment of counsel a nd without an evidentiary

hearing, if there is nothing on the f ace of the judg ment to indicate that the c onvictions addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
The Te nnessee Supreme Court has de termined that the B lakely dec i sion did not announce a new rule of la w and that Te nnessee ’s sentenc i n g structure , under w hich the De fendant was s e n te n c e d , d o e s n o t v io late a d e f e n d a n t’ s s ixth a me n d me n t r ig h t t o a ju r y tria l. Se e St a te v
. G o me z, 16 3 S. W. 3 d 6 32 (T e nn . 2 00 5) . T his c ou rt has prev io us ly he ld that B lake ly

do e s n ot a

pp ly retroa ctively

to c a s e s o nc o ll ater al appe al. See Dona ld Branch v. State, No. W2003-03042-CCA-R3- PC, 2004 W L

2996894, at *10 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, D ec. 21, 2004) , perm. to appe al d e n ie d , ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e a ls o Ca r l Jo h n s o n v
. St a te , N o
. W2 0 0 3

- 0 2 7 6 0

- CC A-R3-PC, 200 5 WL 181699, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Jan. 25, 2005), perm to appeal de nied, (Tenn. 2005). There fore , the habe as cor pus court did not err

in deny ing the Def

endant ha beas c orpus re lief.
Ac c or din g ly , th e State ’s mot ion is g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is af fi rm e 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.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE