### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON

MACK TRA NS OU v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forMadison Cou nty

No. C-08- 330 Roy Mor gan, Jud ge

No. W2008-02713-C CA-R 3-HC - Filed July 9, 2009

The petitioner, Mack Transou, appea ls the Madison County Circuit Court’s dismiss al of his petition for writ of habea s corpus. The State has filed a motion re questing that this c ourt af fi rm t h e o rd er pursuant to R ule 20 of t he R ules of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. Fol lowing our revie w, we gr ant the State ’s mot iona nda ff ir m th e jud gme nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Tr ial Co ur t A ff

ir me d Pur sua nt to Rul e 20 of

th e Rul e s o f the Co ur t o f C r im ina l A ppe als

C AM I LLE R. M C M ULLEN , J., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS and A LA N E. G LE NN , JJ., joined.

Mack Tr ansou, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge n era l and Reporter ; Melissa S. Roberge, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION

On Marc h 22, 1999, the petitioner pled guilty to driving afte r being decla red a habitual motor

ve hic le of fe nd e r fo r wh ic h th e Ma dis on Cou nty Cir c uit Cou rt imp os e d a

tw o y e ar s e nte nc e , n ine ty days of wh ic h w e re to b e se rv e d inthe c ou nty ja il a ndthe re ma ind e r t o b e se rv e d inCom munity Correc tions. A blood sample was take n during the petition er ’s i n t ake in order to provide a DNA sample pursua nt to T.C.A. § 40-35-201. The sa mple was provide d to the Tenne ssee Bure au of Investigation wher e the pe titioner’s DNA pr ofile wa s entere d i n t o C OD IS , the local, state , and national databa se of DN A profiles c ollected f rom crime sc enes and convicted of fende rs.
In May 2002, the petitioner was arr ested based on a match betwe en the pe titioner’s DNA and the DNA pr ofile in CODIS for two unsolved r apes that occur red on D ece mber 23, 2001, a nd Marc h 17, 2002. The pe titioner was found guilty by a Madison County jury of o n e co u n t o f aggr avate d burglary and one count of rape arising from the Dec ember 2001 incident, and one count of ra pe and one count of

sexual battery arising from the Marc h 2002 incident. The pe titioner’s convictions wer e aff irmed by this court on direc t appea l. State v. Mack T. T ransou, No. W 2003-02966-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1154345 (T enn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 13, 2005); State v. Mack T. Transou, No. W2004-01475- CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Ja ckson, June 30, 2005) . The Te nnessee-2-

Supreme Court gra nted permission to appea l in both c ases, and in both case s upheld the petitioner’ s convictions and sente nces. State v. Sca rborough, 201 S.W.3d 607 ( Tenn. 2006). On J uly 15, 2005, the pe tition e r f

ile d h is fi rst app lic a tio n f or writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f w hic h w a s d e nie d b y th is

c ou rt

. Ma c k T . T rans ou v. Sta te , N o. W 20 05 -0 19 35 -C CA -R 3- HC , 2 00 6 W L 5 61 40 1 ( Te nn . Crim. App., at Jac kson, Mar. 7, 2006) pe rm. to appea l denied, (Te nn. May 30, 2006).

On Novembe r 3, 2008, the pe titioner filed another petition for a writ of habea s corpus in the Circuit C o u rt fo r Madison County claiming that his DNA was collec ted illegally. Currently, the petitioner is incar cer ated at Riverbend Maximum Sec urity Prison in Davidson Count y, Tenne ssee. The ha be a s c ou rt

dis mis se d th e pe tit ion ba se d o n th e fo llo wi ng : ( 1) the pe tit ion e r w a s se e kin g to addre ss issues previously liti gated “ numerous times [] pr etrial, on a ppeal during post conviction and in a pr e vio us ha

be a s c or pu s p e tit ion ” ; ( 2) the pe tit ion wa s f ile d inthe wr on g c ou nty ; a nd(3 ) b e c aus e the petition w as not sw orn. Thirty-five days af ter the ha beas c ourt denied r elief, the petitioner filed

a no tic e of app e a l to thi s c ou rt

. A prisoner

is guarante ed the right to habea s corpus relief under A rticle I, se ction 15 of the Tenne ssee Constitution. S ee a lso T.C.A. § 29-21-101, et seq. Howeve r, the grounds upon which

a writ of habea s corpus may be issued are very narrow

. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). “H abea s corpus relief is a vailable in T ennesse e only w hen ‘it appea rs upon the fa ce of

the judgment or the re cord of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rende red’ that a convic ting
court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentenc e a de fendant, or that a de fendant’s sentenc e of imprisonment or other r estraint has e xpired.” Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). “[T] he purpose of a ha

beas c orpus petition is to contest void and not mere ly voidable judgments.” Id. at 1 6 3

. A v oid judgment “is one in which the judgment is fac ially invalid because the court lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judgment or be caus e t he def endant’ s sentence has expire d.” Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83.

In contra st, a voidable judgmen t i s facially valid and re quires the introduc tion of pr oo f b e yo ndthe fa c e of

the re c or d o r j ud gme nt t o e sta bli sh its inv a lid ity . Thu s, in all case s where a petitioner must introduce proof be yond the re cord to e stablish the invalidity of his conviction, then that conviction by definition is merely voidable, and

a Te nn e sse e c ou rt

c a nn ot i ssu e the writ o f ha be a s cor pu s und e r s uc h c ir c ums ta nc e s.

Hi ck m an v. S tate, 153 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Te nn. 2004) (internal citation and quotations omitted); see also Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tenn. 2007) (citations omitted).

Moreove r, it is the petitioner’s burde n to demonstrate, by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, that the judgment is void or that the confine ment is ill egal. W yatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

.

If the ha be a s cor pu s cou rt de te rm ine s f

ro m th e pe tit ion e r’ s f

ili ng s th at no c og niz able c la im has bee n stated and that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus may be summarily dismissed. See Hickma n, 153 S.W.3d at 20. Further, the ha beas co rpus court may summarily dismiss the petition without the appointment of a lawye r and w ithout an evidentiary hearing if there is nothing on the fa ce of the judgment to indicate that the c onvi ct ions are void.-3-

Passare lla v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) , superse ded by statute a s stated i n S t at e v

. Steven S. Newman, N o. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n. 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).

He re , th e State a sse rt s th a t th e pe tit ion e r d id n ot c omp ly wi th the pr oc e du ra l r e qu ir e me nts under Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107 be cause the af fi d av i t attache d to the petition was not notariz ed, the pe titioner failed to state that the l egality of his confine ment had not already been a djudged, and the petition wa s not filed in the appropriate county. More over, the State argue s that th e c oll e c tio n o f the pe tit ion e r’ s D NA ha s p re vio us ly be e n a dju dic a te d o n d ir e c t app e a l or in prior habe as ac tions and should not be re-litigated. W e agr ee.
Following our review of

the re cord an d t h e ap p l icable a uthorities, we conc lude that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas c orpus re lief, and the habea s court’s dismissal of the petition was proper . As an initial matter, the pe titioner failed to verify the application for the writ of habea s

c or pu s b y p ro vid ing a

pr op e r a ff

ida vit . Se e T. C.A . § 29 -21 -10 7(a ). An a ff ida vit is d e fi ne d in Black’s La w Di ct i o n ar y as “[a] voluntary decla ration of f

acts written down and sworn to by the declaran t b e f

o r e a n o f f ic e r au th o r iz e d to a d mi n is te r

o a th s , s u c h a s a

n o ta r y p u b li c

. ” Bl a c k ’ s Law Dictionary (8 ed. 2004). The petitioner offe red as an af fidavit a doc ument that was not notariz ed. th As such, it is insufficient to s at isfy the af fidavit requir ement of the habea s corpus statute. I n addition, the petitioner did not state that to the best of his knowledge and belief that the legality of his restraint has not a lrea dy been a djudged upon a prior proce eding of the sa me ch ar ac t er

. See T.C.A. § 29-21-107( b)(4)

. We note here that the petitioner failed to state that he ha d previously filed a habe as cor

pus petition, arguing large ly the s ame grounds for relief and had been denied relief by this court. See Mac k Transou v. St ate, No. W 2005-01935-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL561401, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar ch 7, 2006) pe rm

. t o appea l denied, (Te nn. May 30, 2006). Finally, the petitioner did not make the application “to the court or judge most c onvenient in point of distance to the applicant ,” and f ailed to provide “ a suff

icient re ason . . . in the petition for not applying to such court or

judge

. ” T.C.A. § 29-21-105. We have repeatedly held t hat t he proc edura l

re qu ir e me nts fo r ha

be a s cor pu s re lie f ar e ma nd a tory an d must be sc ru pu lou sly fo llo we d. Sum me rs , 212 S.W.3d at 260 (c itation omit ted). The ref ore, w e conc lude the habe as court’s summary dismissal of the pe tit ion in this c a se wa s p ro pe r b e c a us e it fa ile d to comply wi th the pr oc e du ra l r e qu ir e me nts of habe as cor

pus relief . Id.

Next, though not entirely c lear from the pe titioner’s brief , to the extent that he ar gues the collection of his DNAwas improper or unconstitutional, we co n clude that this issue has bee n previously adjudicated, and ther efor e without merit. See State v. Scarbor ough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 625 (Tenn. 2006) (holding inter alia that “the tria l court did not err in refusing to suppre ss the evidenc e obtained a s a result of the September 1999 blood dr aw to w hich Transou consente d.”) A previou s adjudi cation bar s a petitioner f rom raising the issue a new in a de nial of habe as cor pus revie w. Bryan Pea

rson v. State, No. E2005-02606- CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 1439613, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, May 25, 2006) pe rm. to appea l denied, (Te nn. Oct. 2, 2006). Mor eover , the admissibilit y of DNA evidenc e is an is sue t hat would rende r a judgment voidable, not voi d, and, thus, may not consti t u t e a g ro u nd for ha beas c orpus re lief. Mac k Transou v. State, N o. W2005- 01935-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 561401, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Ja ckson, Mar . 7, 2006). Acc ordingly, this petiti oner is not entitled to relief

.-4-

When an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, t h e C o urt of Criminal Appea ls may

a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt by

me mor and

um o pin ion

wh e n th e jud g me nt i s

r e n d e r e d o r th e a c t i o n t ak e n i n a p r o c e e d i n g w i th o u t a j ur y an d s u c h j u d g m e n t o r a c t i o n i s no t a deter mination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the finding of the trial judg e. See Te nn. Ct. Crim . App. R. 20. We conclude that this case satisfies the cri t er i a of Rule 20. Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd ered that th e State ’s mot ion is gra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t he tr ia l c ourt

is

a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th R

ule 20 , Ru le s o f t

he Cou rt of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

______________________________ CAMILLE R. McMULLEN , JUDGE