### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs F eb ru ar y 5, 200 8
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. MA RC ELLU S JEF FRIES
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County No. 6169 Joseph H. Wal ker, III, Judge

No. W2007-02027-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled May 13, 2008

Petitioner, Marc ellus J eff

ries, appeals t he trial court’s order dismi ssing his petition for wr it of habea s corpus. We ar e per suaded that the trial court wa s corr ect in summar ily dismiss ing the habea s corpus petition because Petitioner did not demonstrate that his convictions wer e void. The judg ment of the trial court is af

firmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Ci r c uitCo ur t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., and D A V ID H. W EL L ES , J ., joined.

Marc ellus J eff

ries, Pro Se, He nning, T ennesse e.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Pr e sto n Shi pp , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Eliz abeth Rice , District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Petitioner filed a pr o se petition for ha beas c orpus re l i ef on Aug ust 13, 2007. Petit ioner argued that a ple a ag ree ment he enter ed into c alled for illega l c oncurr ent sentenc ing wher e the law
c le arl y pr ov ide d f

or mand a tor

y c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing . A s a re su lt, Pe tit ion e r a lle g e d that h is
c on vic tio ns we re vo id. Pe tit ion e r cl a ime d that whil e he wa s re le a se d on ba il fo r uns pe c if ie d c ha rg e s, he wa s char g ed with additional unspec ified fe lonies. Petiti oner a lso clai med that he wa s char g ed
w i t hm o r e f

e l o n i e s w h i l e h e w a s i nj a i l aw a i t i n g r e s o l u t i o no f t h e p r i o r f e l o n y c h ar g e s

. Ap p ar e n t l y, all of these c harg es we re r esolved via guilty pleas, for which he r ece ived an e ffe ctive sen t en ce of t w e l v e ye ar s

. A c c o r d i n g t o P e t i t i o n e r , a l l o f t h e s e n t e n c e s w e r e o r d e r e d t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y. Petitioner was then subseque ntly convicted of

ag g ravated burg lary

and re ckless homicide a

nd, based on his prior felony

sentenc es re ceive d as a r esult o f t h e gu i l t y pleas, Petitioner ar g ues he w as-2-

sentenc ed in a hig her r ang e to c onsecutive eig ht-y ear sentenc es for these two convictions. In other
wo rd s, Pe tit ion e r a

rgue s th a t hi s c on vic tio ns fo r a g g ra vate d b ur g lary

and re c kle ss h omi c ide are vo id beca use of the imprope r imposition of concurr ent sentenc ing in his prior c ases.
Petitio n er att ache d judgme nts from his rec kless homicide and a g g ravated burg lary convictions to his petition for habea s corpus re lief. Those judgme nts ref lect that on March 19, 2002, Petitioner was sentenced a s a Persistent Off ender to eig ht y ear s for e ach of

fense . The sente nces w ere order ed to be se rved c onsecutively to eac h other.
The trial c ourt dismissed the petition on August 21, 2007. In the orde r dismissing the pe tit ion , th e tr ia l c ourt

no te d th a t Pe tit ion e r f

a ile d to a tta c h judg me nt f or ms f ro m th e g uil ty

ple a s in which Petitioner cla imed that he was err oneously order ed to se rve c oncurr ent sentenc es. The tr ial court dismissed the petition beca use the jud gm en ts were not attache d to the petition and the sentenc es in the ag g ravated burg lary and re ckless homicide cases ha d not y et expired. Fur ther, the tri al co u rt n o ted that nothing on the judgme nts for re ckless homicide or ag g ravated burg lary indicated that the t rial court was without jurisdiction to sentenc e P etitioner. Petitioner appea ls the dismiss al of the pe tition for habea s corpus re lief.

An aly sis Habeas Corpus Relief
The de termination of whe ther to g rant ha beas c orpus re lief is a question of law

. See H ickman
v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 16, 19 (Tenn. 2004) . As such, we wi l l re v i ew t he habe as cor pus court’s finding s de novo without a pre sumption of corre ctness. Id. Mo re ov e r, it is a pe tit ion e r’ s burd e n to demonstrate, by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, “that the sentenc e is void or t hat t he conf inement is ill eg al.” W

y att v . S tate , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

. Article I , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constituti o n guara ntees a n acc used the rig ht to seek habea s corpus re lief. Se e Tay lor v . S tate , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only

when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re cord that the convicting court was without jurisdiction to c onvict or sentenc e the de fenda nt or that the def

endant is still im prisoned despite the e x piration of his sentenc e. Arc he r v . S tate , 8 51 S.W. 2d

15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Potts v. Sta te , 8 33 S.W. 2d

60 , 6 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . In o the r w or ds , h a beas corp us rel ie f m ay

be so ug ht o nly when the judg ment is void, not m ere ly voidable. See Taylor , 995 S.W .2d at 83. “A void judg ment ‘i s o ne in whic h th e jud gment is f a c ia lly inv a lid be c a us e the c ourt

la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n o r a

uth or ity to rende r t he judgment or beca use t he defenda

nt’s sentenc e has e x pired.’ We have re cog nized that a sente nce imposed in direct contravention of a statute, for ex ample, is void and illeg al.” Stephenson v. Carlton , 2 8 S

. W

. 3 d

9 1 0 , 9 1 1 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Taylor , 955 S.W .2d at 83).

I f, af ter a revie w of the ha

beas pe titioner’s filings, the habea s corpus c ourt deter mines that the petitioner would not be entitled to r elief, then the petition may be summarily dismiss ed. T.C.A. § 2 9- 21 -1 09 ; State ex re l. Byrd v. Bom ar , 381 S.W .2d 280 (Tenn. 1964) . Fur ther, a habea s corpus-3-

court may

summarily

dismiss a petition for wr it of habea s corpus without the appointmen t of a lawye r a nd wi tho ut an e vid e nti ary he ari ng if the re is no thi ngon the fa c e of

the jud g me nt t o in dic a te that the convictions addr essed ther ein ar e void. Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S

. W

. 2 d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), supersede d by statute as stated in State v. Steve n S. N ew man , No. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).

T h e p r o c e d

u r a l r e q u i r e m e nt s f

o r h a b e a s c or pu s r e lie f a

re mand a tor

y and mus t be sc ru

pu lou sly follo wed. Su mm e rs v . S

tate , 2 12 S.W. 3d

25 1, 26 0 ( Te nn . 2 00 7) ; Hickm an , 153 S.W .3d at 19-20; Archer , 851 S.W .2d at 165. For the bene fit of individuals such as Petitioner, our l egi s l at u re ha s expli citly laid out the formal require ments for a petition f or a writ of habea s co rp u s at Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107:

(a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, signed e ither by the par ty for whose be nefit it is intended, or some per son on the petitioner’s be half, a nd verifie d by a ff ida vit

. (b) The petition shall state: (1) That th e p erson in whose behalf the writ is sought, is illeg ally restra ined of liberty , and the pe rson by

whom and plac e whe re r estraine d, mentioning the na me of such person, if know n, and, if unknown, de scribingthe per son with as much particula rity as pra cticable ; (2) The caus e o r pretense of suc h restra int accor ding to the be st information of the applicant, and if it be by virtue of any leg al proce ss, a copy there of shall be a

nnexed,
or a satisfactory

rea son g iven for its abse nce; (3) That the leg ality

of the re straint has not alre ady been a dj u d ged upon a prior proce eding of t he same char acte r, t o the best of t he applicant’s knowledge and belief ; and (4) That it is the first application for the wr it, or, is a previous application ha s been made, a copy o f t he petition and proc eeding s thereon sha ll be produce d, or satisfac tory

rea sons be g iven for the failure so to do.

A h a be a s c or pu s c ourt “ pr op e rl y

may c ho os e to summa

ri ly dis mis s a pe tit ion

fo r f a ili ngto c omp ly with the s tatutory proce dural requireme nts.” Su mm e rs , 21 2 S. W.3 d at 26 0; See also Hic kman , 153 S.W .3d at 21. Fur

ther, in Su mm e rs , our supre me cour t expl ained:

I n the ca se of a

n illega l sentence claim base d on fac ts not appare nt from t he fa ce of the judg ment, an ade quate r ecor d for summary revie w must include perti n ent documents to su p p o rt t h o se fa ctual asse rtions. When such documents from the-4-

rec ord of the unde rlying pr ocee dings are not attache d to the habeas cor pus petition, a trial c ourt may

proper ly choose to dismiss the petit ion without the appointment of
co u n s el an d

wi t h o u ta h ea ri n g.
212 S.W .3d at 261.

I n this case, Petit ioner claims that the judg ments entere d ag ainst him are void bec ause the y encompa ss an illeg al sentenc e. F irst, it is clea r that Petitioner’s sente nces f or ag g ravated burg lary and re ckless homicide ha ve not expired. Secondly , Petitioner did not m ee t the statutory
re qu ir e me nts . H e did

no t atta c h th e un de rl ying , a lle g e dly ill e g a l ju dg me nts to his pe tit ion fo r wri t of habea s corpus or offe r an explanation a s to why he did not attach th e j u dg ments. SeeT.C.A. § 29 -2 1- 10 7( b) (2 ); State ex re l. W ood v. Johnson , 393 S.W. 2d 13 5, 13 6 ( Te nn . 1 96 5) . Pe tit ion e r a lso failed to attach documents showing that he was subject to mandatory consec utive sentenc ing upon entry of his g uilt y

pleas. As state d above, f ailure to mee t the statutory require ments is sufficient basis for a

summary dismiss al of a petition f

or habea s corpus r elief. Su mm e rs , 212 S.W .3d at 260; Hickm an , 153 S.W .3d at 21. The trial court properly dismiss ed the petition for habeas c orpus re lief.
Conclusion

F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e de c isi on

of the ha be a s c or pu s c ourt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE