### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs Ja nuary30, 200 7 JAC QUE S B. BEN NET T v. V IRGIN IA LE WIS, WAR DEN and ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Bledsoe Coun ty No. 61-2005 Thom as W. Gr aham , Judge

No. E2006-01592-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Fe bruary 8, 2007

Th e pe tit ion e r, Jac qu e s B

. B e nn e tt, ple d g uil ty to fi rs t de g re e mur de r in 1 99 2 andwa s se nte nc e d to life in prison. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arg uing that the judgme nt ag ainst him was void because he w as not prese nt and not repr esente d by co u n s el at his sentencing hearing and beca use the trial c ourt did not follow statutory mandates in sente ncing him. The trial court dismi ssed his petition wit hout a hea ring . We affirm the judgme nt of the trial court. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J A MES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined. J acque s B. B ennett, Na shville, Tennessee , Pro Se. Robert E. Cooper, J r., Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Cameron L

. Hy der, Assistant At torney Gene ral; and James Michae l T ay lor, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION The doc uments attache d to the petition r efle ct that the petitioner pled g uiltyto first deg ree mur de r i n H a mil tonCou nty on No ve mbe r 9 , 19 92

. Th e “ or de r of c on vic tio n” e nte re d on that date states that the sente ncing hearing w as set for Dec em b er 1, 1992. Acc ording to the petitioner, he never attended a s entenc ing hearing on that date or any date therea fter. He also claims that he neve r waived his rig ht to be prese nt at his sentencing hearing. T he petitioner’ s first deg reemurder judgme nt has Novembe r 9, 1992, written a s the date of entry of j udg ment. Be low the trial judg e’s s i g n a t u r e , t h e d a t e J an u ary 5 , 1 9 9 3 , i s w r i t t e n a s t h e “ d a t e s i g n e d

. ” T h e j u d g m e n tw a s s i g n e db y a prosec utor but not by

a def ense at t orney . Acc ording to the petitioner, he w as re prese nted in trial court by two attorney s. The petition er al l eges that on Dece mber 13, 1992, he filed a motion re qu e sti ng ne w c ou ns e l a ndto w ith dr a w h is g uil ty ple a . Wh ile thepet it ion e r s a y s th a t to thebe st-2-

of his knowledg e, no orde r has ever been filed on this motion, in a previous appeal this court stated that the trial court denied the motion bef ore entering judgme nt. J acque s B. B ennett v. State, C.C.A. 03C01-9809-CR-00338, Hamilton County , slip op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oc t. 5, 1999). The c over sheet of an investigation report date d J anuary 11, 1993, was atta ch ed to the petition and lists t he pe tit ion e r’ s h e ari ng date a s Jan ua ry 21, 19 93 . T he pe tit ion e r w a s u ns uc c e ssf ul i n s e e kin g po stconviction re lief on g rounds that his plea wa s involuntary and unknowing and that he r ece ived the ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. J acque s B. Benne tt v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9512-CR-00391, Hamilton County(Tenn. Crim. App. Aug . 28, 1996). This c ourt also aff irmed the trial c ourt’s denia l of a lat e- fi l ed “Motion to Vac ate/Set Aside Judgment/Plea: and, to De clar e Said J udg ment/Plea V o i d

. ” J a c q u e s B

. B e n n e t t , C

. C

. A

. 0 3 C 0 1

- 9 8 0 9

- C R

- 0 0 3 3 8 , H a m i l t o n C o u n t y. Th e pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t heis e nti tle d to ha be a s cor pu s re lie f be c aus e ne ith e r h e no r h is counsel we re pr esent at the time he was sentenc ed. He contends that seve ral due proce ss violations areimplicated t hat render his judgme nt void. He a lso contends that his sentencing violated statutory p ro v i s i o n s o f t h e 1 9 8 9 S en t en ci n g Ac t , i n cl u d i n g t h e m an d at ed t i m e p e r i o d f o r c o n d u ct i n g a sentenc ing he aring , a def endant’ s statutory

rig ht to be p rese nt at sentenc ing he aring , and the utiliz ation of a pr esente nce r eport during sentenc ing. The state disputes the pe titioner’s claim that his sentenc ing took plac e on January 5, 1993, and ar g ues that the pe titioner’s judg ment would not be void eve n if his claims weresupported by the re cord. Th e t ri al court dism issed the petition without a hearing, stating that the pe titioner’s alleg ations, if true, would re nder the judgme nt voidable, not void, and thus did not present a cog nizable claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. The de termination o f wh et h er habea s corpus re lief should be g rante d is a question of law which we re v i ew d e novo on appeal. Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2001). Ha beas c orpu s re l i e f

w i l l b e g r a n t e dw h e n t h e p e t i t i o n e r c a n s h o w t h a th i s j u d g m e n ti s v o i d , n o tm e r e ly vo ida ble . T a y lor

v. State , 99 5 S.W. 3d 78 , 83 (T e nn . 19 99 ). To thi s e nd , a writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s is g rante d only

“whe n it appear s upon the fac e of the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed that a c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to sentencea def endant or that the sente nce ha s expi red.” Stephensen v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Arc her v. State, 851 S.W .3d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)). The burden is on the petitioner to establish that the judg ment is void. W y att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000) ; State ex rel

. Ku ntz v. Boma r, 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291-92 (1964). I f the petitioner car ries this burden, he is entitled to immediate rele ase. Passa rella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (T en n . Crim. App. 1994). Howe ver, the trial court may d i s m i s s a petition for writ of habea s corpus without an e vid e nti ary he ari ng a nd wi tho ut a pp oin tin g a

la wy e r w he n th e pe tit iondo e s n ot s tate a c og niza ble claim for r elief. H ickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 1 6 , 2 0 (T en n . 2 0 04); State ex. rel. Edmondson v. Hende rson, 220 Tenn. 605, 609, 421 S.W.2d 635, 636 (1967); see also T.C.A. § 29-21-109. Th e pe tit ion er is corr e c t inpo inting ou t th a t a de fe nd a nt h a s th e ri g ht t o b e pr e se nt at hi s sentenc ing he aring . See State v. Te ag ue, 897 S.W.2d 248, 256 (Tenn. 1995). A def endant a lso has a rig ht to be repr esente d by counsel at his sentencing hearing. S ee T enn. R. Crim. P. 44(a). Howeve r, the pe titioner’s claims, if true, w ould rende r the judg ment voidable, not void. These a re claims that would have been pr oper to raise in a post-convic tion petition, ra ther than in a habea s-3-

c o rp u s p e t i t i o n . S e e , e . g . , O s e p c z u k v . B e l l , N o . M 2 0 0 6

- 0 0 1 3 1

- C C A

- R 3

- H C , D a v i d s o n C o u n t y, slip. op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 8, 2007) (stating that the petitioner’s c laim that he was de nied the opportunity

to speak on his beha lf prior to sentenc ing “ is not a rec og nized claim for ha b eas c or pu s r e lie f” ). Like wi se , w he the r the tria l c ou rt fol low e d th e pr op e r s tatut ory pr oc e du rein conducting the sentenc ing hearing, inc luding whe ther it utiliz ed a pr esente nce r eport, is not an issue that would rende r t he judgment voi d. The trial court had the j urisdiction and authority to sentence thepe tit ion e r t o li fefo r h is f ir st d e g re e mur de r c on vic tio n. Th e pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims do no t e nti tle him to habea s corpus re lief, and the trial court did not er r in dismissi ng his petition. Ba sed on the for g oing and the re cord a s a whole, w e af firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt dismiss ing the petition for writ of ha beas c orpus.

___________________________________

J OSEPH M. TI PTON, PRES I DING JUDGE