### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 9, 200 4

SKY LA SEP EDA SM ITH v. C HER RY LIND AM OOD , WA RD EN, and

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 3377 J. Randall Wyatt, Jud ge

No. M2003- 01872-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Jul y 7, 2004

Th e pe tit ion e r, Sky la Se pe da Smith, fi le d a pe tit ion fo r ha be a s c or pu s re lie f in the Da vid so n Co un ty Cr imi na l Co urt. I n the pe tit ion sh e a lle g e d th a t th e c on vic tio n s he re c e ive d a ft e r p le a din g g uil ty to one count ag g ravated child abuse is illega l and void because a conflict be tween the g uiltyplea a nd the judg ment eff

ec t i vely resulted in an illeg al sentenc e. The Davidson County Criminal Court dismiss ed the pe tition. Because the pe titioner does not prese nt a cog nizable c laim for habe as cor pus relief , we a ffirm the dismissal of the pe tition.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court is Aff irm ed

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OE G. R I L EY and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

J ohn C. Ford, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Sky la Sepeda

Smit h.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; T h o mas E. Will iams, I I I , Assistant Attorney Gene ra l; V ic to r

S. Jo h n s o n , D is tric t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; a n d K a th y

M o r a n te , A s s is tan t D is tric t Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Fa ctual B ackg round

T h e pe t i t i o n er wa s i n d i ct ed i n 1 9 9 8 o n ch ar ges o f es p ec i al l y aggr a v a t e d k i d n ap p i n g, ag g ravated child abuse , ag g ravated assault, and c hild abuse and ne g lect. Pursuant to a plea

a g re e me nt w ith the Sta te , the pe tit ion e r ple d g uil ty to one c ou nt o f a g g ra vate d c hil d a bu se , a s a Cla ss B f elony , and rec eived a twelve -y ear sentenc e. The plea a g ree ment ref lects the sente nce a s “12 y ear s at 85%.” The judg ment form re flec ts that the petitioner wa s require d to serve 100% of her sentenc e as a violent off

ender in acc ordanc e with Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-501(i)( 2)(K)

.-2-

Subsequently , the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction re lief claiming t hat she wa s
c oe rc e d in to p le a din g g uil ty . Se e Sky la Se pe da Smith v . St a te , No. M 20 00 -0 00 35 -C CA -R 3- PC, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Na shville, Jan. 17, 2001), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 2001). The petiti on was denied by the t rial court and that decision was aff irmed by this Court. I d.

I n M arc h o f 2 00 3, the pe ti ti on er fi le d a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionin the Da vid so n Co un ty Criminal Court claiming that her fac ially -valid judg ment was void bec ause the hearing tr anscript and ple a a g re e me nt s up po rt e d th e inf e re nc e that sh e e nte re d a

g uil ty ple a to an il le g a l se nte nc e . T he Sta te filed a motion to dismis s which wa s later g rante d by the t ri al co urt. She appe als, arg uing that the trial court erre d in dismiss ing the petition. The S tate ar g ues that the re cord supports the trial court’s decision to dismiss t he petition.

Habe as Corpus Relief
The g r o u n d s u p o n w h ic h h ab e a s c o rp u s r e li e f is w arr a n te d ar e n arr o w

. St e p h e nson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) . The writ will issue only when it appears upon the f ace of the judg ment or the rec ord of the proce eding s upon which the judg ment is render ed that a c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to sentenc e a defe ndant or that the sentenc e has e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)

.
A habe as cor

pus petition may

only be used to c halleng e judg ments that are v o i d and not

me re ly vo ida ble . I d. ; T a y lor

v. Sta te , 9 95 S.W. 2d78 , 8 3 (T e nn . 199 9)

. A v oidjud g me nt “ is o ne in which the judg ment is f

acia lly invalid be cause the court lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judgme nt or bec ause the defe ndant’s sente nce ha s expi red.” Tay lor, 995 S.W .2 d at 83. The Tenne ssee Supre me Court has re cog nized that a sentenc e impo s ed i n direc t contrave ntion of a sentenc ing statute, i.e., the leng th or manner of ser vice, f

or example, is void an d illega l. State v. Bur khart, 566 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978). A voi dable judg ment is one that is fac ially valid and

re qu ir e s p ro of

be y on d th e fa c e of

the re c or d or

the jud g me nt i n o rd e r t o d e mon str a te its vo ida ble ne ss. Dy ke s v . Co mpt on , 9 78 S.W. 2d 52 8, 52 9 (T e nn . 199 8)

. A voi da ble jud g me nt m a y

no t be c oll a te ra lly attacke d by

means of a

habea s corpus pe tition. P otts v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) ; see also Luttrell v. State, 644 S.W .2d 408, 4 0 9 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982) (alleg ed constitutional vio la tio ns that r e nd e r a

c on vic tio n v oid able are pr op e rl y a dd re sse d in post -c on vic tio n p ro c e e din g s, not habea s corpus proc eeding s).

A t ri a l c ou rt is n ot r e qu ir e d, a s a

ma tte r o f la w, to g rant the writ a ndc on du c t a n in qu iry int o the alleg ations contained in the pe tition, and if the petition fails to state a cog nizabl e claim, t he petition may

be summarily

dismiss ed by

the t rial court. See P assar ella v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-109.
A petitioner h as the burde n of establishing by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e that the judgme nt he attac ks is v o i d o r that his term of imprisonment has expired. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Boma r, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291 (Tenn. 1964). I f a pe titioner fails to e stablish by a pre ponderance of-3-

the evidenc e that his c onviction is void or his term of imprisonment has expired, he is not entitled to immediate rele ase. Passa rella, 891 S.W.2d at 627-28.

I n the c a s e h e r e in
, th e p e ti ti o n e r ar g u e s th a t s h e p le d g u il ty to a g g r a v a te d c h il d abuse and ag ree d to a twelve- y ea r s en t ence to be serve d at 85%, but that the judg ment ref lects that she wa s sentenc ed to a twe lve-y ear sentenc e at 100% . The pe titioner arg u es t h at the plea a g ree ment “conte mplates an illeg al sentenc e for her to serve” b ec au se in ac cordance w ith Tennessee Code An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -5 01 (i )( 2) (K ), a de fe nd a nt s e nte nc e d f

or a n a g g ra vate d c hil d a

bu se convicti o n shall serve 100% of the se ntence . The c onflict betwe en the plea ag ree ment and the judgme nt, the petitioner ar g ues, indicate that the sentenc e is void and thus mandates ha beas c orpus relief beca use the “ illega lityof the sente nce is e vident on the fa ce of the re cord.”

T h e p e ti ti o n e r

r e li e s o n B arr y D u n h a m v

. St a te , N o

. M 2 0 0 0

- 0 2 5 5 7

- CC A

- R3

- PC
, 2 0 0 2 WL 242356 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Feb. 11, 2002), to support her arg ument. I n Dunham, the pet i t i o ner soug ht post-conviction relief based on an unknowing or involuntary plea, inef

fec tive

c ou ns e l, anda n il le g a l se nte nc e . T he pe tit ion e r i n D un ham pl e d g uil ty to s e c on d d e g re e mur de r i n exchang e for

a sentenc e of twenty -five y ear s. The orig inal judgme nt refle cted that the pe titioner was sentenc ed as a standar d Rang e I offe nder instea d of as a

violent offende r. An a mended judg ment was filed indicating that the petitioner wa s to serve 85% of his sentence prior to bec oming e ligible f or parole . Wit hout an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court de termined that it wa s an illeg al ple a . T he Sta te app e a le d a nd th is Cou rt de te rm ine d th a t “ the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt c or re c tly conclude d that the re cord c ontained en o u gh information to question whether the petitioner understood the r amifications of hi s g uiltyplea” wher e he w as misinformed as to the implications of his guilty plea. I d. at *3. As a r esult, the ca se wa s remande d for a new tria l.

The distinction betwee n Dunham and the case here in is that in Dunham, the ac tual judgme nt ref lected an illega l sentenc e. I n the ca se her ein, the sente nce r efle cted on the judg ment is a leg al sentenc e that proper ly ref

lects the require d rang e of se rvice . Further, Dunham was a post-c onviction proce eding while the petitioner he rein see ks relief on the basis of ha

beas c orpus.
That being said, the petition er i n t h i s case does not arg ue that her sentenc e is expired; there fore , she is a candidate for habea s corpus re lief onl y if the j udg ment or sentenc e is void. I n that reg ard, a claim that her

plea ba rg ain ag ree ment was not honored in the j udg ment enter ed or se ntence imposed prese nts at most a claim of a me rely voidable, and n o t v o i d, judgme nt or sentenc e. See Roge r T. Johnson v. State, No. M2002-02902- CCA–R3-CO, 2004 W L 443971 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Mar ch 5, 2004) (dete rmining that petitioner’s claim that plea a g ree ment was bre ache d by amendment of

judgme nt did not present a cla im for habe as cor pus relief ); J eff rey Miller v. State, E2000-01192-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 98 7 1 5 4 (T en n. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, Aug . 29, 2001) (h old ing that w he n ple a ba rg a in wa s no t ho no re d in fi na l jud g me nt pe tit ion e r did no t pr e se nt a c la im for ha beas c orpus re lief); Paul Ba rnett v. State, No. E1999-01583- CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 782048 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, J une 20, 2000) ( determining that alleg ation did not rise to l evel of void sentence wher e peti t i o n er claimed that he a g ree d to three- y ear sentenc e, but judg ment was altere d without his knowledg e to ref lect five-y ear

sentenc e); Paul G. Hull v. State, No. 02C01-9605--4-

CC-00 1 8 3
, 1 9 9 7 WL

346215 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, June 24, 1997) (c oncluding that alleg ation that state fa iled to abide by t er ms of plea a g ree ment did not present cog nizable habea s corpus c laim). We theref

ore c onclude that the pe titioner’s claim wa s not cog nizable in a petition for writ of habe as cor

pus as the judg ment or sentenc e is m ere ly voidable. See Mc L aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . For that rea son alone, the lower court proper ly dismiss ed the petition.

Further, the petitioner c ould have attacked he r plea in her post-c onviction petition. However
, consideration of t he present claim as one for post-convic tion relief would be improper, be cause the ple a wa s e nte re d o n Se pte mbe r 2 3, 19 98 , a ndthe tim e for fi li ng a po st- c on vic tio n p e tit ionha s, there fore , expired. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-202(a ). This issue is without merit.

Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE