### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 15, 200 4

ROB ERT L. CL AR K, JR. v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

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

No. 8943 E. Eugene Eb len, Jud ge

No. E2004-00248-CC A-R3- HC F iled Jul y 26, 2004

The pe titioner’s judg ment forms ente red May 29, 1996, ref lect that he pled g uilty to second de g ree murder, a Class A felony , committed on November 18, 1994, and possession of cocaine g reater than one-ha lf g ram with intent to se ll, a Class B felony , committed on October 3, 1994. The trial c ourt sentenc ed him to twenty -five y ear s on the murde r convic tion and twelve y ear s on the coc aine conviction. The judg ments order ed t he sente nces to be serve d concur rently to eac h other but
consec utively

to sentence s for other

convictions listed on the judgme nt f orms. The petitioner filed
a pe tit ionfo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f c la imi ng that hi s se ntences a revo id b e c aus e the y

are in direc t contrave ntion of statutory law re quiring them to be served consec utively rathe r than
concur rently . The trial c ourt g rante d habea s corpus relief , and the State appea led. We hold that the testimonyprese nted by

this petiti oner w as outside the re cord of the under ly ing c onvictions and proce eding s and there fore should not have bee n consider ed b y the trial court. We rever se and
rema nd this case f

or a de termination as to whethe r the re cord of the under ly ing c o n v i ct i o ns and proce eding s constitutes satisfactory proof that the pe titioner was o n b ai l fo r the Class B cocaine offe nse whe n the sec ond deg ree murder w as committed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt R ever sed and Case Rem anded

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., deliver ed t h e o p i n i on of the c ourt, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

P au l G

. S u m m e r s , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r ; B r e n tC

. C h e rr y , A s s i s t a n tA t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; J. Scott McCluen, District Attorney Gene ral; and Roge r Delp, Assistant D istrict A ttorney Gene ral, for the appe llant, State of Tenne ssee.

J oe H. Walker , District Public De fende r, and Walter B. J ohnson, I I , Assistant Publ ic Def ender , for the appe llee, Robert L . Clark, J r.-2- OP IN ION

On May 14, 1996, the petitioner, Robert L . Clark, J r., pled g uiltyto second de g ree murder,
a Cla ss Afe lon y , a ndpo sse ssi on of c oc a ine g re a te r tha n o ne -h a lf g ram w ithint e nt to se ll, a Cla ss B f elony . The trial c ourt sentenc ed him to twenty -five y ear s on the murder conviction and twe lve y e ars on thec oc a inec on vic tio n. Th e jud g me nts or de re d th e se nte nc e s to be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y to
e a c h o the r, bu t c on se c uti ve ly to s e nte nc e s f

or oth e r c on vic tio ns lis te d o n th e jud g me nt f orms. The pe titioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habe as Corpus on Dec ember 19, 2002, claiming that his se ntence s are void be cause they are in direct c ontrave ntion of statutory law re quiring them to be serve d consec utively to one another rathe r t han concurre ntly . On J une 17, 2003, the tria l court conducte d a hea

ring to consider the matter. T h e p etitioner testified that he was a rre sted for the
cocaine cha

rg e on Oc tober 3, 1994, and was r el ea s ed on bond the same day . The judg ment form indicates that the se cond deg ree murder w as committed on Novembe r 18, 1 9 94. The trial c ourt stated that it was conside ring the tes t i m o ny of the pe titioner and the dates of the of fense s. On J anuary 26, 2004, the trial court issued an orde r setting aside the judg ments and finding that the two
se nte nc e s a

reill e g a l in that the y mus t ru n c on se c uti ve ly rathe r tha n c on c ur

re ntl y . T he State tim e ly filed notice of

appea l.

The State c ontends on appe al that the trial c ourt err ed in finding t h e j u d gm ents void and g ranting habea s corpus relief

. When r eviewing a petition for ha beas c orpus re lief, the de termination of whe ther re lief should be g rante d is a question of law. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 20 01 ) ( c iti ng Ha

rt v. State , 21 S.W. 3d 90 1, 90 3 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ). Th us , th is C ou rt ’s re vie w i s de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss give n to the finding s of t he court below. I d. The g rounds upon wh ic h h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f i s w arr a nte d a

rede c ide dly

na rr ow . T he writ w ill iss ue on ly wh e n it
app e ars up on thefa c e of

thejud g me nt o r the re c or d o f the pr oc e e din g s up on wh ic h th e jud g me nt i s rende red that a court lacked jurisdiction or authority to sentenc e a defe ndant or that the se ntence has expired. Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000); Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) . A habe as cor pus petition may

be used to c halleng e judg ments that are void, not
me re ly vo ida ble

. Tay lo r v. S tate, 99 5 S. W.2 d 7 8, 83 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . “ A v oidjud g me nt i s o ne in which the judg ment is facia lly invalid be cause the court lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judgme nt or bec ause the defe ndant’s sentenc e has expired.” I d. (citations omitted). By contra st, a voidable convic tion or sentence is one which is fac ially valid and thus require s proof bey ond the fa ce of the recor d or j udg ment to establish its invalidity

. I d. The burde n of proof that the judg ment or sentenc e is “void,” rather than “voidable,” rests wit h the petit ioner. W y att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

.
A s e nte nc e imp os e d indir e c t c on tr a ve nti on of a statut e is v oida ndill e g a l. State v. B ur kh art , 56 6 S. W.2 d 8 71 , 8 73 (T e nn . 1 97 8) . T he pe tit ion e r a lle g e s, a nd the tr ia l cou rt a g re e d, that th e of fe ns e of murder co m m i t ted in case 95-97 wa s committed while the petitioner wa s out on bond for the felony drug offe nse commi tted in case 95-271. Following g uilty pleas, the trial court ordere d the two
se nte nc e s to ru n c on c ur

re ntl y to e a c h o the r b ut c on se c uti v e l y t o o the r, app are ntl y

un re la te d, of

fe ns e s. Thus, the conc urre nt sentence s would be in direc t contrave ntion t o T ennessee Code Annotated-3-

se c tio n 4 0- 20 -1 11 (b ), wh ic h p ro vid e s th e fo llo wi ng : “ I n a ny c a se in w hic h a

de fe nd a nt c omm its a fe lon y wh ile su c h d e fe nd a nt w a s r e le a se d on ba il,

. . . the tria l ju dg e sh a ll n ot h a ve dis c re tio n a s to whether the sentenc es shall run concur rently or cumulatively , but sha ll order that suc h sentenc es be
serve d cumulatively .”

I n McL aney

v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90 (Tenn. 2001), the habeas petit ioner filed a petition in the Davidson County

Criminal Court alleg ing that he had be en re lease d on bail on a cha rg e in J eff erson Countywhen he committed two additional f elonies in that c ounty

. The pe titioner submitt ed a ple a ag ree ment for a ll these char g es to the J eff erson CountyCircuit Court. The plea a g ree ment contained a provision that all three of the petitioner’s sentenc es wer e to be serve d concur rently . The pe titioner fu rthe r a lle g e d th a t, b e c aus e he wa s o n b a il f or on e fe lony whe n h e c omm itt e d tw o o the rs , h is
se nte nc e s w e re ill e g a l be c au s eT e n n e s se e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 20 -1 11 (b ) andTe nn e sse e Rul e
o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 3 2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( C ) m a n d a t e d c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c i n g u n d e r s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. In lig ht o f this c la im that hi s agre e d c on c ur re nt s e nte nc e s w e reill e g a l, the pe tit ion e r m a int a ine d h is pleas of g uiltywer e not knowing ly or voluntarily

enter ed and should be set aside.

The Te nnessee Supreme Court held that if Mc L aney ’s alleg ations about being on bail when he committed two additional fe lonies weretrue, then c oncurr ent sentenc es would be in direct contra vention of the law, illega l, void, and subj ect to revie w by way of a writ of habeas corpus. The supreme c ourt noted that if the Da vidson Countyhabea s court determined that the alleg ations were true, the Davidson County court should de clar e the concur rent sente nces void a nd then transf er the
case to the J eff

erson County

trial court f

or imposition of lega l sentence s. McL aney , 59 S.W .3d at 92-95.

I n McL aney , the petitioner ha d acte d pro s e without the assis tance of appointed c ounsel as reque sted. 59 S.W .3d at 94. ‘H a d a n atto rn e y be e n ap po int e d, if the re c or d o f the un de rl y ing pr oc e e din g s c le arl y showed that the latter r ap e an d burg lary offe nses wer e committed while McL aney was on ba il, a

ppointed counsel presumably would have broug ht those rec ords to the attention of the c ourt, and a determination whether the judgme nt was voi d could have been r esolved on the me rits.’ I d. Th e pe tit ion e r i n th e pr e se nt c a se wa s a ff or de d th e a ssi stanc e of

c ou rt app oin te d c ou ns e l. Ho we ve r, c ou ns e l di d n ot i ntr od uc e a ny do c ume ntation c on ta ine d inthere c or d u nd e rl y ing the se convictions or proc eeding s that the petitioner wa s i n d ee d out on bail when the latter offe nse wa s
c omm itt e d. Th e pe tit ion e r’s c ou ns e l su bmi ts that he wa s n e ve r s e rv e d w iththe State ’s mot ionto dismiss the habe as cor

pus petition. There fore , “counse l had no knowledg e of the State’s position in this case” an d was not aw are that the nec essary rec ords would be r equire d. We do not find the petitioner’s a

rg ument t o b e p er suasive. The burden w as on the pe titioner to prove that he w as entitled to habea s corpus re lief. The only evidenc e conta ined in the re cord before us that the petitioner wa s out on bond when the sec ond offe nse was committed is his t estimony at the habe as corpus he aring

. The petiti oner’ s testimony considere d by the t rial court was proof bey ond the fa ce of the rec ord or judgme nts in the underly ing c onvictions or proce eding s. There fore , the testimony was not prope rl y co n s idere d in finding the judgme nts void. The trial court a lso stated that it was-4-

c o n s id e r in g th e d a te s o f

th e o f f e n s e s ind e te r mi n in g th a t th e p e ti ti o n e r w a s o u t o n b on d

. We
c on c lud e that th e fa c t th a t th e se c on d o ff e ns e wa s c omm itt e d a

pp ro xima te ly

on e mon th a ft e r the fi rs t offe nse sheds little light on hi s b o n d s t at us. This evidence does not war rant ha beas c orpus re lief. Howeve r, bec ause the petitioner may have a dditional evidence in the rec ord underly ing the se two convictions and the pe titioner may have chosen not to introduce such evidenc e bec ause the trial court wrong fully

acc epted the pe titioner’s testimony which is outside the re cord, w e re mand this case f or further hearing.

CO NC LU SION

I n conclusion, we re v erse the j udg ment of t he trial court granting habeas c orpus re lief and
rema nd this case for further hearing and determination as to whether satisfactory proof is conta ined in the re c or d o f the un de rl y ing c on vic tio ns or pr oc e e din g s sh ow ing that th e pe tit ion e r w a s o n b a il for the Class B cocaine offe nse whe n the sec ond deg ree murder w as committed.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE