### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

EUG ENE J. KO VA LSKY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Morgan County No. 9077 E. Eugene Eb len, Jud ge

No. E2005-00491-CC A-R3- HC F iled Augu st 15, 2005

The pe titioner, Eug ene J. Kovalsky , appea ls from the trial court' s order dismiss ing his pe tition for
wr i to f h ab ea s co rp u s

. T h e s t at e h as fi l ed a m o t i o n re q u es t i n g t h at t h i s co u rt af fi rm t h e t ri al co u rt 's denial of r elief pur suant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. The pe titioner has faile d to e sta

bli sh that he is e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s reli ef. Ac c or din g ly , th e state ' s mo tio n is g rante d and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f theCo ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.

Rex A. Dale , L oudon, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, Eug ene J. Kovalsky

. Paul G

. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Renee W. Turne r, Kathy D. Asling er, A ssistant Attorney s Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

I n J une 2000, the pe titioner was indicted by a Ha wkins County Gra nd J ury for first deg ree preme ditated murder . On Fe bruary 13, 2001, the petitioner plea ded g u il ty to v o lu n ta r y ma n s la ug hter. Pursuant to his plea ag ree ment, the peti t i o n er wa s s entenc ed to 15 y ear s as a Rang e I I I , persistent offe nder. T h e petitioner soug ht post-conviction relief in October

2001, alleg ing ine ffe ctive
as s i s t an ce o f c o u n s el an d an u n k n o wi n g, i n v o l u n t ar y gu i l t y p l ea

. Fo l l o wi n g an ev i d en t i ar y h ea ri n g, t h e t ri al court de nied re lief. This court a ffirme d the judg ment on appea l. See Eug ene Joseph Kovalsky v. State, No. E2002-00441- CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2003).

On June 6, 20 04 , th e pe tit ion e r f ile d a pe tit ionfo r writ of ha

be a s c or pu s. He a sse rt e d th a t, irrespec tiv e of

his ple a a g re e me nt, the tr ia l c ou rt wa s w ith ou t auth ority

to s e nte nc e him

a s a persistent off

ender in view of his lack of a prior c riminal history

and the state ’s fa ilure to file notice of intent to seek a n enhanc ed punishment. Following the appointment of counsel and a he aring on-2-

the ma tte r, the tr ia l c ou rt

dis mis se d th e pe tit ionfi nd ing that it faile d to est abli sh a c og niza ble c la im for ha beas c orpus re lief.

I n T e n n e s s e e , “ [a ]n y

p e r s o n i m p r i s o n e d o r

r e s tr a i n e d o f

h i s l i b e r t y , u n d e r

a n y p r e te ns e wh a tso e ve r, e xce pt [tho se hel d u nd e r f e de ra l auth ority ], may

pr os e c ute a

writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s to inquire into the cause of suc h imprisonment and restraint.” Church v. State, 987 S.W .2d 855, 857 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 98 ); T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 1. Th e pu rp os e of a ha be a s cor pu s p e tit ionis t o c on te st void and not mere ly

voidable judg ments. Arche r v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 163 (Tenn. 1993) (citing State ex rel. Newsom v. Hende rson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W .2d 186, 189 (1968)) . The burde n is on the pe tit ioner to es ta

bli sh that th e jud g me nt i s v oidor that th e se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d. State e x re l. Ku ntz v . B oma

r, 21 4 T e nn . 5 00 , 5 04 , 3 81 S.W. 2d 29 0, 29 1- 92 (1 96 4) . I f the pe tit ion e r c arrie s th is bu rd e n, he is e nti tle d to imm e diate re le a se . Pa ssa re lla v. State , 8 91 S.W. 2d61 9, 62 7 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1994). A pe tition s eeking issuance of a writ of habea s corpus may be summarily

dismiss ed by a trial c ourt if it fails to indicate that the pe titioner' s conviction is void. T.C.A. § 29-21-109.
First, the pe titioner submits that the trial court was wit h o u t j u ri s d iction to acce pt his plea ag ree ment beca

use he posse sses no prior fe lony co n v i ct ions to just ify his sentence as a pe rsistent offe nder. A s the petitioner ac knowledg es, howe ver, the Tenne ssee Supre me Court h as re jected simil ar se ntencing challe n ges , holding that of fende r cla ssifications and re lease elig ibilit y "a re no n

- ju ris d ic ti o n al a

n d leg itimate barg aining tools in pl ea ne g otiations under the Criminal Sentencing Reform Ac t of 1989." Bla nd v. Dukes, 97 S.W.3d 1 3 3 , 1 34 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (citing McConnell v. State, 12 S.W .3d 795, 798 (Tenn. 2000); Hicks v. State, 945 S.W .2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997)); State v. Mahle r, 735 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tenn

. 1987). The pe titioner' s remaining claim of a void judg ment based on the sta t es 's fa i l u re to provide notice of its intent to seek a n enhanc ed
se nte nc e is no t a cogni z able c la im f or ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f. I n s umm ary , th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y dis mis se d th e pe tit ionfo r w ri t of ha be a s c or pu s. Upon due c o n sideration of the pleading s, the rec ord, and the applicable law, the c ourt
co n c lu d e s th a t th e p e ti ti o n e r h a s n o t e s ta b li s h e d th a t h e is e n ti tl e d to h ab e a s c o rp u s relief

. Ac c or din g ly , th e state ’s mot ionis g rante d a ndthe jud g me nt o f the tr ial c ou rt is a ff ir me d in
acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE