### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

MIC HAE L L. SM ITH v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for John son Coun ty No. 4441 Robert

E. Cup p, Jud ge

No. E2004-02752-CC A-R3- HC F iled Jul y 13, 2005

Th e pet it ion e r, Mic ha e l L . Sm ith , a pp e a ls f ro m th e tr ia l c ou rt ' s o rd e r d e nying his pe tit ionfo r w ri t of habe as cor

pus. The state ha s filed a motion reque sting that this court a ffirm the trial court' s denial of re lief pursua nt to Rul e 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petitioner has f ailed to establish a cog nizable claim for ha beas c orpus relief

. Acc ording ly , the state' s motion i s g rante d and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

N O RM A M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., joined.

Michae l L . Smit h, Mountain City , Tenne ssee, Pro se.

Paul G

. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Seth P. Kestner, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Joe C. Crumley , J r., District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On J uly 24 , 1 9 8 6 , t he petitioner e ntere d a plea of g uiltyto the offe nse of r obbery with a d ea d l y we ap o n

. P u rs u an tt o h i s p l eaagr ee m en t , t h e t ri al co u rt s en t en ce d t h e p et i t i o n eras a R an ge I I , persistent and ag g ravated offender , to serve f orty (40) y ear s in the Depa

rtment of Corre ction. No direc t appea l was take n. There afte r, the pe titioner sought post-c onviction relief ba sed on a c laim of ineffe ctive assistanc e of tria l counsel. The trial court denied the petit ion following an evide ntiary hearing. O n appea l, the j udg ment was affirmed. See Michae l L . Smit h v. State, No. 03C01-9205- CR-00157 (Tenn. Crim. App. Fe b. 24, 1993), app. de nied (Te nn. J une 1, 1993). O n Aug ust 10, 2004, the petitioner filed a pro se pe tition for writ of habe as corpus. He claimed that his g uiltyplea was not knowing ly

and voluntarily

enter ed in that it w as based on a “non-e x istent” statutory waiver of rig hts provision and that the trial court either f ailed to ac curately

inform him or misrepre sented to him the law reg ardin g acc eptanc e of his g uiltyplea. The trial court summarily denied r elief, concluding that the petitioner ha d failed to pre sent a cognizable claim for ha beas c orpus re lief. The petitioner timely

appea led.-2-

Th e pu rp os e of

a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionis t o c on te st v oida ndnot mere ly vo ida ble jud gm ents. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W. 2d 157, 163 (Tenn. 1993) ( citing State e x rel. Ne wsom v. Hende rson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W. 2d 186, 189 (1968)). A writ of habea s corpus may be g rante d only when the petitioner has e stablished lack of jurisdiction for the orde r of c onfinement or that he is otherwise e ntitled to immediate rele ase beca use of the expiration of his sentence . See Ussery v. Avery , 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 6 (1 9 6 8); State ex rel. Wade v. Norve ll, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 44 7, 44 3 S. W.2 d 8 39 (1 96 9)

. Th e bu rd e n is on the pe tit ion e r t o e sta bli sh that th e jud g me nt i s v oid or that t h e s en t ence has e x pired. State e x rel. Kuntz v. Bomar , 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W. 2d 29 0, 29 1- 92 (1 96 4) . Ape tit ion s eeki ng iss ua nc e of a writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s may be su mma

ri ly dismiss ed by

a trial c ourt if it fails to indicate that the pe titione r's conviction is void. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109.
The pe titioner’s claim o f an i n v oluntary and unknowing g uiltyplea would not support issuance of

the w ri t beca

use, eve n if proven, it would re nder the judgme nt merely voidable rather than vo id. Se e Ar c he r, 85 1 S. W.2 d at 16 4. Th e " a uth orize d a ve nu e fo r atta c kin g a vo ida ble judgme nt is a petition for post-conviction relief ." State v. McClintock, 732 S.W .2d 268, 272 (Tenn. 1987). As noted, howe ver, the petitioner has pr eviously soug ht post-conviction relief and the tria l court determined the merits of the claims prese nted following a full evide ntiary hearing. T hus, the petitioner is barr ed by

the sing le-p et i t ion provision from seeking post-conviction re lief in a sub sequent pe tition attacking the same judg ment. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 102 (c) (2003). Ba sed on the for eg oing, the trial court pr operly denied the pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus. Upon due c onsideration o f the plea dings, the rec ord, and the applicable law, the c ourt conclude s that the petitioner has not pre sented a cogni z ab le claim for

habea s corpus re lief. Acc ording ly , the state’s motion is gr anted. The judgme nt of the trial court is aff irmed in ac corda nce with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE