1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

SHERMA N C LARK v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. P -31405 Lee V este r Coffee, Judge

No. W2006-02594-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Augu st 30, 2007

The Petitioner, Sherma

n Clark, appe als the trial cour t's d en i al of his petition for habe as corpus r elief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court aff irm the trial cour

t's de nial of
re lie f p ur su ant t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f t he Court of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls. Th e Pe tit ion e r f a ils to a sse rt

a c og niza ble c la im f

or wh ic h ha

be a s c or pu s re lie f m ay

be g ra nte d. Ac c or din g ly , th e State ' s mo tio n is g rante d and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS AND A L AN E. G L EN N , J J . joined. Sherman Clark, pr o se.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; So ph ia S. L ee, A ssistant Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION

On August 2 4, 2006, law enf orce ment office rs ar

rested the Petitioner, Sherman Clark, f or committing two ac ts of ag g ravated assault. The char g es we re he ld o v er t o the Gra nd J ury on or about Octobe r 11, 2006. The c ourt set bail in the amount of $ 75,000.00. On Octobe r 23, 2006, the Petitioner filed a m o t i o n t o d ismiss , which wa s dismis sed by the trial cour

t on October

26, 2006. On Novembe r 9, 2006, the Petitioner filed a pr o s epetition for habe as c o rp u s re l ief in the Shelby2

County Cr imi na l Co ur

t, a lle g ingtha

t he is d e pr ive d o f “ his lif e and lib e rt

y wi th an e xce ssi ve ba il, b y anin s u f f ic ie n t a f f id av it o f c o mp la int. ” T h e Pe ti ti o n e r f urth e r s tate d th a t “ [t ]h is c a s e mu s t be immediately

dismiss ed bec ause T.C.A. § 40- 6-107 authorized th a t a s ta te ’ s w arr ant must be executed wi thi n ( 5) da

y s o f i ts i ssu anc e or

it i s vo id and

no le g a l w arr ant h a s b e e n is su e d in the ins tant c a se it bars of ser

ved to date to wit.” T he trial c ourt dismissed the petition on November 13, 2006.
The State ha s filed a moti on reque sting that this Court aff irm the di smissal of t he lower court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Te nnessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The State asser ts that the application for

habea s corpus relief filed by the Petitioner fails to state a c og nizable claim entitling him to relief.
A writ of ha

beas c orpus m ay b e gra n ted only when the pe titioner has established lac k of jur isd ic tio n f

or the or de r o f c on fi ne me nt o r t hat he is oth e rw ise e nti tle d to imm e diate re le a se be c a us e of t he ex piration of his sentenc e. See U ssery v . Ave ry, 22 2 T e nn . 5 0, 43 2 S. W.2 d 6 56 (1 96 8) ; Sta te
e x rel

. W ad e v . No rv e ll, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 447, 443 S.W.2d 839 (1969). Whi le habe as cor pus relief is available when any person is illega lly imprisoned or re strained of liberty , see T.C.A. § 29- 2 1 -1 0 3 , 1 0 4 , th e w ri to f h ab ea s co rp u s i s n o tth e p ro p er v eh i cl e t o co n t es t th e P et i t i o n er ’s ch al l en ge to the arr est war

rant. Wit hin the context of a criminal proce eding , “the g rounds upon which habe as corpus relief will be g rante d are narr ow.” Sta tev . R itc hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000). Relief is only available in Tennesse e whe n it appears u p o n t h e fa ce of the judg ment or the re cord of the pr oc e e di ngs upon

wh ic h th e jud g me nt i s r e nd e re d th a t a c ourt la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n o r a

uth or ity to sentenc e a de fenda

nt or that a defenda

nt’s sentenc e or other restraint has expired. Archer v . State, 85 1 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 4 (T e nn . 1 99 3) ; Potts v. State, 83 3 S.W.2 d 60, 62 (T e nn . 199 2) . N e ith e r o f t he se circ umstances is pre sent in this case.

Al le g a tio ns c ha lle ng ingthe a ff ida vit of com pla int and arr e st w arr ant a

re no t c la ims cog nizabl e in

a h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d in g

. I f

th e a f f id av it o f c o mp la int a

n d ar r e s t w ar r an t w ere invalid and void, t h at i nvalidity would not preve nt a valid judg ment of convic tion from being obtained. S

e e g e n e r a l l

yJ a m es R u s s e l l

G a n n v

. Sta te , No . 0 3C0 1- 97 07 -C R- 00 27 4 ( Te nn . Cr im. App., at Knoxvill e, Jun. 25, 1998). Accor dingly , the Petitio n er ha s failed to state a claim upon which the wr it of habea s corpus may issue. Upon due c onsideration of the pleading s , t h e rec ord, and the applicable law, the Court conclu des that the Petitioner has not e stablished that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief. Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d th a t th e State ' s mo tio n is g ra nte d. Th e judgm ent o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is
a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th R

ule 20 , Ru le s o f t

he Cou rt of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE