1



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

AT JAC KSON

COR VA CK SHA W v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 93-08189; 93- 08190 W. Otis Higgs, Jr., Jud ge

No. W2005-01332-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled March 7, 2006

The Petitioner, Corvac k Shaw, appe als the lower court’s denial of his moti on reque sting re lief fr om an invalid sentenc e. The State has filed a moti o n re questing that this Court affirm the trial c ourt pu rs uant t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Crimi na l App e a ls. Th e Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to e sta

bli sh his entitlement to relief from an unconstit utional or i nvalid sentenc e. Ac cording ly , we a ffirm the tria l c ou rt ’s dis mis sa l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of the Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d 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
J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N AND J.C. M C LIN , J J . joined.
Gre g ory Thomas Carman, Me mphis, Tennessee , for the Petitioner, Corva ck Shaw.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; J . Ross Dy er, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appellee , the State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION The Petitioner, Corvac k Shaw, was indicted in Septe mber 1993 for first deg reemurder and attempt to commit first deg reemurder. On November 3, 1994, Petitioner Shaw enter ed g uiltypleas to one count of murde r in the sec ond deg reeand one c ount of attempt to commit first deg reemurder.T h e pl ea di n g c i t ed t o s ec t i on 29- 1- 106, T en n es s ee Code An n ot at ed, a s t h e bas i s for t h e f i l i n g
. Se ct i on 29- 1 1

- 1 0 6 pro vi d es: “ Injunct i o ns, at t achm ent s, excep t as o t herwi se provided , wri t s o f ne exeat , and other ext raord i nary p ro c e ss a re gr a n te d b y the c h a n c e llo rs , cir c u it ju d g e s, a n d ju d g e s o f cr im ina l an d sp e c ia l co u rts.”

2 For the sec ond deg reemurder c onviction, the trial court imposed a rang e II I sentenc e of f

orty -five (45) y ear s. For the attempted first de g reemurder c onviction, the tr i al court im posed a r ang e I sentenc e of f

ifteen ( 15) y ear s. The trial c o u rt further order ed that the se ntence s be served concur rently

. The Petitioner first soug ht post-conviction relief on J uly 1 5 , 1 9 9 9 . This petition was dis mis se d a s ti me -b arr e d. OnMay 24 , 2 00 0, thePe tit ion e r f ile d a se c on d pet it io n fo r p os tconviction re lief. The trial court summari l y d i s m issed the petition as time-bar red. See Corvac k S h aw v . S tat e , No. W2000-01567-CAC-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jun. 26, 2001) ( order). This Court aff

irmed the trial c ourt’s summary dismiss al. Id. A third petition was filed on May 2, 2002. This petition was dismis sed on May 10, 2002.

On Octobe r 18, 2004, the Petitioner filed, pro s e , a plea ding in the Shelby CountyCriminal Court captioned “ Constit utional Challeng e to Vac ate I nvalid Sentence .” The plea ding c halleng ed 1 thele g a lity

of thePe tit ion e r’ s se nte nc e s b a se d u po n the Un ite d Stat e s Supr e me Cou rt de c isi on s in Apprendi v. New Je rsey and Blakely v. W ashington. The S tate orally responde d to the pleading on Ap ri l 26 , 200 5. Th e State no te d th a t th e Pe tit ion e r, wh o h a d e xhaus te d h is r e me die s f or po stconviction re lief; t h i s b eing the fifth petition for post-c onviction relief. T he State further a dvised the court that the Petitioner was attempting for relief throug h an extraordinary writ. I n this reg ard, the State noted that the Petitioner “ has not raise d any claim which the Tennessee law has any relief for.” The trial c ourt summarily dismiss ed the pet i t i o n b y order enter ed April 26, 2005. The court then appointed c ounsel for pur pose of a ppeal. Appointed c ounsel filed a timely notice of a

ppeal do c ume nt.
Th e P e t i t i o n e r

f i l e da p l e a d i n g c ap t i o n e d“ C o n s t i t u t i o n a l C h a l l e n g e t o V a c a t e I nv a lid Sentence ,” with re liance upon section 29-1-106, Tenne ssee Code Annotated. In its order de ny ing re lie f, thetria l c ou rt

app are ntl y

tr e a te d th e pe titio n as one se e kin g ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f, in that it relied upon se ction 29-21-101, Te nnessee Code Annotated. While the exact natureof the Pe tit ion e r’ s mo tio n is un c le ar, a ny app e a l th e re of

fails fo r s e ve ral r e a so ns
. The motion may

not be trea t ed as a m o tion for cor rec tion or reduc tion of sentenceas the motion was not filed within t h e 1 2 0 -d ay time limi t for filing the motion. See Te nn . R. Crim. P. 35(b). Simi larly , the m otion is proce durally barr ed if treated as a petiti on for post-c onviction relief. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102( a), (c) (must be filed within one y ear of judg ment becoming final; only one pe tit ionfo r r e lie f m a y

be fi le d) . While du e pr oc e ss d ic tate s th a t th e statut e of lim itatio ns no t beso stric tly app lie d a s to de ny

a pe rs on theop po rtun ity

to h a ve his c la im h earda ndde te rm ine d at a meaning ful time and in a meaningf ul manner, Sta te v . M

c Kni gh t, 51 S.W. 3d55 9 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) ; Se als3

v. State, 23 S.W. 3d27 2 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; Burford v. State, 845 S.W .2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) , the exceptions to the statute of limit ations are expli citly l imited, i.e., (1) c laims based upon a ne w rule of constitu t i onal law a

pplicable to a pe titioner' s case , (2) c laims based upon new scientific e vidence showing innocenc e, and (3) claims based upon enhanc ed sentences that wer e enhance d beca use of c o n v ic ti o ns subsequently

found to be illeg al. See T

. C

. A. § 4 0 -3 0 -1 0 2 (b )( 1 )- (3 ). Petitioner asserts that a claim he alleg es is based upon a final ruling of an appellate court e stablishing a c onstitut ional rig ht that was not re cog nized as exi sting at the time of trial. Specifica lly , Petitioner asserts that the U nited States Supreme Court' s decision in Blakelyv. W ashington invalidates the sente nces imposed by the t ri al court. This Court has pre viouslyheld that re trospective a pplication of the rule in Bl ake ly to case s on collater al review i s not require d. See Issac Herron v. State, No. W2004-02533-CCA-R28- PC ( T e n n
. Crim

. A p p
. , a t Ja c k s o n , N o v. 22, 2004) ( order ). Ac c or din g ly , Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to e sta bli sha g ro un d th a t w ou ld t oll thestatut e of lim itatio ns
. The Petitioner had filed prior petitions for post-conviction relief , thus, we may

construe the plead in g a s a

mo ti o n to r e o p e n a

p e ti ti o n f

o r p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n r e li e f

. H o w e v e r , e v e n tr e a ti n g the pleading as such, it fa ils. First, the ap p eal fails as the Petitioner has not satisfied the pr ocedur al require ments for ve sting jurisdiction in this C ourt. See T. C.A . § 40 -3 0- 11 7( c ); Te nn . Su p. Ct. R. 28 § 10(b). Theappeal was not filed within ten day s of t he lower court’s r uling, no a

pplication for pe rm iss ionto a

pp e a l w a s f

ile d andtheno tic e of ap peal wa s f ile d inthetria l c ou rt , n ot this Cou rt

. Nothing in the noticeof appe al document would indicate that it could be ef fec tively treated as a n ap p l ication for pe rmission to appeal. See G raham v. State, 9 0 S. W. 3 d 6 8 7 , 6 9 1 ( T enn. 2002). Ne ith e r the Pos t- Con vic tio n Pro c e du re Ac t nor the Rul e s of the Sup re me Cou rt pe rm it this Cou rt to suspend the statutory

require ments for ve sting jurisdiction. See Ma rio Ga te s v. S tate , No. W2002- 02873-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 W L 23100815, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. Ap p ., at J ackson, D ec. 31, 2003)

. Mo re ov e r, e ve n h a d th e Pe tit ion e r p ro pe rl y inv ok e d th is C ou rt ’s jurisd ic tio n, theapp lic a tio n w ou ld fail on its merits. The P et i t i o ner a sserts that the Blakely cre ated a new r ule of c onstitut ional law. This Court has previously held that re trospective a pplicat i on of the rule announce d in Blakelyv. W ashington to case s on collatera l review is not required. See I ssac Herron v. State, No. W2004- 02 53 3- CCA -R 28 -P C; se e als o State v. Gome z , 163 S.W .3d 632, 6 5 0 -5 1 (Tenn.) , reh ’g de nied , (2005). Thus, the Petitioner failed to alleg e a g round under which a peti t i o n fo r post -convic tion relief may be re opened. Finally , th e p e ti ti o n a ls o f a il s if tr e a te da s a n ap p li c a ti o n f o r h ab e a s c o rp u s r e li e f

. H ab eas corpus r elief is a vailable in this state only when it appe ars on the f

aceof the judg ment or the re cord that the trial court was without jurisdiction to convict or se ntence the def endant or that the sentenc e of i mprisonment has otherwise expired. Arc he r v . S tate , 8 51 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v . S tate , 8 33 S.W. 2d60 , 6 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . Ape tit ion e r c a nn ot c oll a te rally a tta c k a fa c ia lly va lid conviction in a habe as cor pus proce eding

. Po tts , 833 S.W .2d at 62. In the pre sent ca se, the Pe tit ion e r atta c ks theva lid ity of his c on vic tio ns be c aus e he wa s d e nie d his rig ht t o tria l by jury wi th re g ard to s e nte nc ing . T his Cou rt ha s p re vio us ly

re je c te d th is c la im i n th e hab e a s c or pu s c on te xt, concluding that such claims are voidable , not void, and that the Bl ake ly holding is not to be applied retroa ctively

. Se e Ea rl Da v id Cra wfo rd v . R ic k y Be ll , N o
. M 2 0 0 4

- 0 2 4 4 0

- CC A

- R3

- H C, 2 0 0 5 WL 354106, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, F eb. 15, 2005). A dditionally , we note that, if treate d as an application for habea s corpus relief, the application was filed i n the wrong court. See T.C.A.4

§ 29-21-105 ( petition for habe as cor pus must be made to court most convenient to the location of the petitioner).

Th e Pe tit ion e r h a s fa il ed to e sta bli shthat heis e nti tle d to re lie f. Th e tria l c ou rt pr op e rl y dis mis se d the motion re qu e sti ng re lie f fr om a n inv a lid se nte nc e
. Ac c or din g ly , the State ’s mot ionis g rante d. The judgme nt of the trial court is a ffirme d in a ccor dance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Crimi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ 

### JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, J UDGE