### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove mb er 14, 200 7 CLAUDE SHARKE Y v. STAT E OF TENNE SSEE , CHERRY

LIND AM OOD , WA RD EN
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forWayne County

No. 14124 Stella Hargrove , Judge

No. M2007- 00709-CCA -R3-HC - Filed Marc h 20, 2008

The petitioner, Claude Sharkey, pro se, appea ls the summary dismiss al of his pe tit i o n fo r h abea s corpus r elief. H e cla ims that his indictments wer e deficient and that his sentenc es we re imprope r. After revie w, we con clude his j udgments are fac ially valid with no jurisdictional defec t or illegal sentenc es. The summary dismiss al is aff irmed. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Af firme d
J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., delivere d the opinio n of the c ourt, in which D AVI D H. W ELL ES and J ER R Y L. S MIT H , JJ., joined. Claude Sharke y, Clifton, Tennessee , Pro Se. Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter ; Mark A. Fulks, Senior C o u n s el ; an d T. Michel Bottoms, Dist rict Attorney G ener al, for the appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
The judgments attached in this appea l r evea l that the petitioner pled guil t y t o fi rs t degre e murder, e specia lly aggravated robbe ry, and c onspiracy to c ommit aggravate d rob b er y an d that he rec eived a n agre ed to se ntence of life plus twenty-five ye ars in 1996. On or about Janua

ry 4, 2007, he fi le d a n app lic a tio n fo r writ of ha be a s c or pu s, c laimi ng that th e jud gme nts a ga ins t hi m w e re vo id beca use the indictments w ere improper. The State’s motion to dismiss was granted a fter a rguing that the petitioner did not raise the challenge to the indictments prior to trial and that his argume nt was waived by virtue of the guilty plea.
A h abe a s c or

pu s p e tit ion ma y b e us e d to c ha lle ng e jud gme nts that are vo id andno t me re ly voidable. Stephenson v. S tate, 28 S .W.3d 910, 911 (Te nn. 2000)(c iting Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) ; Arche r v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ). A void judgment is one in which the judgment is fac ially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render-2-

the judgment. Id. On the other hand, a voidable judgment is one that is f acia lly valid and require s proof be yond the fa ce of the re cord or j u d g m ent to establish its invalidi ty. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d at 83. The petiti oner has the burden of establishi ng by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that his judgment is voi d. The trial court may summarily dismiss a petition f or writ of ha

beas c orpus re lief whe n the pe tit ion e r d oe s not sta te a c og niz able c la im. Pa ssa

re lla v. Sta te , 8 91 S.W .2 d 6 19 , 6 27 (T e nn . Crim. App. 1994). A pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus may only be brought if the judgment is void or the sentenc e has e xpired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W.2d at 164.
Th e pe tit ion e r’ s c la im that th e ind ic tme nts we re de fi c ie nt s ho uld ha ve be e n raise d pr ior to trial. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b). A review of the indictments reve als that citations for the statutes violated wer e conta ined i n the i ndictments, rende ring them sufficie nt to support a conviction. See State v. Carter , 988 S.W.2d 145, 149 (Tenn. 1999)

. Th e se nte nc e s impo se d w e re sp e c if ic a lly a uth oriz e d andla wf ul. No de fe c t fa c ia lly e xis ts. Conclusion The pe tition for writ of habea s corpus was corr ectly dismissed. The judgment is aff irmed.

___________________________________ JOHN EVE RETT WILL IAMS, JUDGE