### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON AN TON IO KEN DRICK v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE A p p ea l f ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 92- 12034 Jam es C . B eas l ey, Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2008- 02808- C C A - R 3- H C - F i l ed F ebruary 12, 2010

T he Pet i t i oner , A nt oni o K endr i ck, appea l s t he C r i m i nal C our tof Shel by C ount y’ s di s m i s s al o f his p eti ti o n for h ab ea s co rpu s reli ef. T h e S tat e ha s fi led a m o ti o n req u esti n g that this co u rt d ism iss th e p e tit io n e r’s a p p e a l o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , affirm th e trial c o u rt’s o rd e r p u rsu a n t to R ul e 20 of

t he R ul es of

t he C our tof

C r i m i nal A ppeal s . Fol l ow i ng ourr evi ew , w e gr antt he S tate ’s m o tio n a n d a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt. T en n . R . A p p . P . 3 A p p ea l as o f R igh t; Ju d g m en t of th e C rim ina l C o u rt A ffir m e d P u r su a n t to R u le 2 0 o f th e R u les o f th e C o u r t o f C r im in a l A p p e a ls C AMI LLE R. M C M ULL EN , J

. , del i vere d t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch J OH N E VER ETT W I LLI AMS and A LAN E. G LEN N , J J

. , j oi ned. A n to n io K e n d ri c k , J o lie t I llin o is , P ro S e . R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; and D es hea D ul any Faughn, A s s i s t ant A t t or ney G ener al , fort he A ppel l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. M EM ORAN DU MOP IN ION T he pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed by a j ur y of r ape, a cl as s B fel ony, and he w as s ent ence d as a s t andar d of

fender t o t en year s i n t he Tennes s ee D epar t m entof C or r ect i on. See St at e v. A n to n io K e n d ri c k , N o . 0 2 C 0 1 -9 6 0 4 -C R -0 0 1 2 1 , 1 9 9 7 W L 6 8 6 2 6 6 , a t * 1 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p ., atJ acks on, N ov. 5, 1 9 9 7 ). O n di r ectappea l , t hi s cour taf f i r m ed t he convi ct i on and t he s ent ence . I d. at **5- 7. T he pet i t i oners ubs equent l y f i l ed a pe t i t i on forpos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef t hatw as deni ed. See A nt oni o K endr i ck v. St at e, N o. W 1999- 01789- C C A

- R 3- PC , 1999 W L 1531345, at*1 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atJ acks on, D ec. 27, 1999)

. T hi s cour taf f i r m ed t he j udgm entof

t he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t
. I d. at*2. T he pet i t i oner ’ s s ent ence eventual l y expi r ed; how ever , he fi l ed a pet i t i on forhabea s cor pus r el i ef i n t he C r i m i nal C our t of Shel by C ount y pr es um abl y beca us e his co n vi ct i on af fect ed hi s s ent ence fora s epa rate convi ct i on i n I l l i noi s . A nt oni o K endr i ck v. St at e, N o.-2-

W 2007- 00912- C C A

- R 3- H C , 2 0 08 W L 450618, at*1 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atJ acks on, Feb. 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 ), p e rm . to a p p e a l d e n ied , (T e n n . Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 )

. T h e p e tit io n e r is c u rre n tly conf i ned att he St at evi l l e C or r ec ti o n al C ent eri n J ol i et , I l l i noi s . I n t he pet i t i on forhabea s corpus rel i ef, he rai sed several cl ai m s based o n the Stat e’s al l eged fai l ure t o el ect an o ff ense i n t h e i n d i c t me n t
. T h e p e t i t i o n e r wa s d e n i e d h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t
. I d

. On di r ectappea l , t hi s cour taf f i r m ed t he j udgm entof

t he l ow er cour t i n a m em or andum opi ni on th a t sta ted : [ T ] he p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s fo rh a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f a r e m a n d a t o r y and m us tbe s cr upul ous l y fol l ow ed. H i ckm an v. St at e, 153 S. W

. 3d 19- 20 ( T enn. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e fo rm al req u ir em en ts for an ap p li ca ti o n for ha b ea s co rpu s reli ef a re codi f i ed at29- 21- 107, T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed, and a tr i al cour tm ay p rop erly c h o o se to d ism iss a p eti ti o n for fail ing to co m p ly w ith the s tat u tory pr ocedur al r equi r em ent s . . . . ” H ickm an , 1 5 3 S. W

. 3d at21. I n t he pr es ent cas e, t he Pet i t i onerfai l ed t o adher e t o t he m andat or y r equi r em ent s forhabea s co rpu s pet i t i ons . Speci f i cal l y, t he Pet i t i onerfai l ed t o i ncl ude a c opy of t he j u d g m entof

convi ct i on underw hi ch he c l ai m s he i s i l l egal l y det ai ned. See T

. C

. A

. § 29- 21- 107( b) ( 2)

. T hi s r eas on al one pr ovi des adequa t e j us t i f i cat i on fort he tr i al cour t ’ s s um m ar y di s m i s s al of t he pet i t i on. C f

. F au lkne rv. St at e, 2 2 6 S

. W

. 3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 5 (T en n . 2 0 0 7 ). I d. at*2. T h e c u rren t ap p ea l co n ce rns a d o cu m en t f il ed b y the p eti ti o n er in the C ri m inal C o u rt o f S h e lb y C o u n ty e n title d “ S u p p le m e n ta l A u th o ri tie s to P e titio n fo r W ri t o f H a b e a s C o rp u s .” T he tr i al cour tt r eat ed t he docum entas a n ew p eti ti o n forw r i tof habea s cor pus . T he pet i t i oner ar gued t hat hi s j udgm ent i s voi d beca us e the tr i al cour ti ns t r uct ed t he j ur y t hathe coul d com m i tt he of

fens e by m eans ot her t han set for t h i n t he i ndi ct m ent
. O n O ct ober13, 2008, t he tr i al cour ti s s ued an or derdenyi ng habea s corpus r el i ef t hats t at ed: T he def endanthad pr evi ous l y f

i l ed a w r i tof

habea s corpus w hi ch w as deni ed, a p p e a led a n d a ffir m e d b y th e a p p e llate c o u rts. H e h a s s u p p lem e n ted h is pr evi ous w r i t but t he re s ul ti s t he s am e. T he i s s ue has no m er i tand does not m eett he r equi r em ent s of a s t atut or y w r i t of habea s corpus . T he i s s ues r ai s ed d o n o t m a k e h is c o n v ictio n s v o id m e re ly v o id a b le. F u rth e r, th e y h a v e n o m e rit and fai l t o setou tany basi s for set t i ng asi de h i s c o n v ictio n s. H e al so has a p e tit io n fo r p o st[-] c o n v ictio n p e n d in g w h ich is th e b e tt e r a ttac k o n h is con vict i on s. O n N ovem ber13, 2008, t he pet i t i onerf i l ed ano ther d o cum enti n t he C r i m i nal C our tof Shel by C ount y t hatw as ent i t l ed “M ot i on t o R econs i der/ M odi f y C our t ’ s O r derD enyi ngThe record does not c ontain a pe tition fo r w rit of habea s corpus, excep t for the one filed on March 1 14, 20 07. This co urt ha s already ad dressedt his petition. Se e S tate v. A ntonioKendrick , N o. W2 00 7- 00 91 2- C C A -R 3- H C , 2 00 8 WL 45 06 18 , at *1 ( T en n. C ri m. App . , at J ac ks on , F eb

. 1 9, 2 00 8) , p erm. to ap peal d enied, (Te nn. Jun e 30 , 2 008). -3- Suppl em ent ed W r i tof

H abea s C or pus . ” I n t he m ot i on, t he p eti t i onerar gued thatt he tr i al cour ter r ed by notr ul i ng on a pet i t i on for w r i t of habea s corpus t hat he cl ai m s w as f i l ed on M ar ch 5, 2008. H e cont ends t he tr i al cour tm i s t akenl y bel i eved hi s “Suppl em ent al 1 A ut hor i t i es t o Pet i t i on forW r i tof H abea s C orpus ” suppl em ent ed hi s f i r s t pet i t i on forhabea s cor pus r el i ef

t hatw as f

i l ed i n 2007. U pon r evi ew , t he tr i al cour tagai n deni ed r el i ef , f i ndi ng t hatt he pet i t i o n er h ad n o t p roven hi s j udgm entw as voi d. T he pet i t i onerf i l ed a not i ce of appea l on D ece m ber2, 2008. A pr i s oner i s guar ant eed t he ri ghtt o habea s corpus r el i ef underA r t i cl e I , s ect i on 15 of t he Tennes s ee Const i t ut i on. See al s o T

. C

. A

. § 29- 21- 101, ets eq. H ow ever , t he gr ounds upon w hi ch a w r i tof

habea s co rpu s m ay be i s s ued ar e ver y nar r ow . T ayl orv. St at e, 995 S .W .2 d 7 8 , 8 3 (T e n n . 1 9 9 9 ). “H a b e a s co rp u s re lief is a v a ilab le in T e n n e ss e e o n ly w h e n ‘it a p p e a r s u p o n t h e fa c e o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r t h e r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s u p o n whi c h t he ju d g m e n t is re n d e re d ’ th a t a c o n v ictin g c o u rt w a s w ith o u t ju risd ictio n o r a u th o rity to s ent ence a def

endant , ort hata def

endant ’ s s ent ence of

i m pr i s onm entorot herr es t r ai nthas expi r ed. ” A r cherv. St at e, 851 S. W

. 2d 157, 164 ( T enn. 1993)

. “[ T ] he pur pos e of a habe as c o rp u s p e tit io n is to c o n te s t v o id a n d n o t m e re ly v o id a b le ju d g m e n ts.” Id . at 1 6 3 . A v o id j udgm ent“i s one i n w hi ch the j udgm enti s faci al l y i nval i d beca us e the cour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on oraut hor i t y t o r endert he j udgm entorbeca us e the def endant ’ s s ent ence has e x p ir e d .” T a y lo r, 9 9 5 S .W .2 d a t 8 3

. I n contr as t , a voi dabl e j udgm enti s faci al l y val i d and r equi r es t he i ntr oduct i on of pr oof beyond t he fa ce of t he re cor d or j udgm entt o es t abl i s h i t s i nval i di t y. T h u s, in all ca ses w h ere a p eti ti o n er m u st introd u ce p roo f be y o n d the re co rd t o es t abl i s h t he i nval i di t y of hi s convi ct i on, t hen t hatconvi ct i on by def i ni t i on i s m er el y voi dabl e, and a Tennes s ee c our tcannoti s s ue the w r i tof habea s c o rp u s u n d e r s u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s . H ickm an v . S tat e, 15 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 6 , 2 4 (T en n . 2 0 0 4 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion an d q u o tat ion s o m it ted); s e e a ls o S u m m e rs v . S ta te , 2 1 2 S .W .3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 6 (T e n n . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). M or eover , i t i s t he pet i t i oner ’ s bur den t o dem ons t r at e, by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatt he j udgm en t is voi d ort hatt he conf i nem enti s i l l egal

. W yat tv. St at e, 24 S .W .3 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 2 (T e n n . 2 0 0 0 ).-4-

If th e h a b e a s c o rp u s c o u rt d e ter m in e s fro m th e p e tit io n e r’s filing s tha t n o c o g n iza b le cl ai m has been s t at ed and thatt he pet i t i oneri s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef , t he pet i t i on forw r i tof habea s cor pus m ay be s um m ar i l y di s m i s s ed. See H i ckm an, 153 S. W

. 3d at20. Fur t her , t he habea s cor pus cour tm ay s um m ar i l y di s m i s s t he pet i t i on w i t hout t he appoi nt m ent of a l aw yer a n d w ith o u t an e v id e n tiary h e a rin g if th e re is n o th in g o n th e fa c e o f th e ju d g m e n t to in d ica te t hatt he convi ct i ons ar e voi d. Pas s ar el l a v. St at e, 891 S. W

. 2d 619, 627 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 4 ) , s u p e r s e d e d b y s t a t u t e a s s t a t e d i n S t a t e v . S t e v e n S

. Ne wm a n , No

. 0 2 C0 1

- 9 7 0 7

- CC0 0 2 6 6 , 1 9 9 8 W L 1 0 4 4 9 2 , at *1 n . 2 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . , at Jac k so n , M ar. 11 , 1 9 9 8 ). H e re , the S tate c o n ten d s the p e tit io n e r did n o t a d h e re to th e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts forhabea s co rpu s pet i t i ons underT ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 29- 21- 107. Speci f i cal l y, t he St at e as s er t s t hatt he pet i t i onerdi d noti ncl ude a c op y o f t he j udgm entof convi ct i on under w hi ch he cl ai m s he i s i l l egal l y det ai ned. T hi s cour thas pr evi ous l y deni ed t he pet i t i onerhabea s cor pus r el i ef fornoti ncl udi ng a copy of t hi s docum en t. S ee S tat e v. An t o n i o Ke n d r i c k , No

. W 2 0 0 7

- 0 0 9 1 2

- C C A- R 3

- HC , 2 0 0 8 W L 4 5 0 6 1 8 , a t* 2 ( T e n n . C r i m. A pp. , at J acks on, Feb. 19, 2008) , per m . t o appea l deni ed, ( T enn. J une 30, 2008)

. U pon r evi ew of

t he r ecor d, w e l i kew i s e hol d t hatt he pet i t i oneri s notent i t l ed t o habea s cor pus r el i ef beca us e he fai l ed t o i ncl ude i n t he appel l at e re cor d a copy of t he j udgm entfor m . See T

. C

. A

. § 29- 21- 107( b) ( 2) ( 2008) ( “The pet i t i on s hal l s t at e: ( 2) T he ca us e orpr et ens e of s uch r es t r ai ntacc or di ng t o t he besti nfor m at i on of t he appl i cant , and i f

i tbe by vi r t ue of

any l egal p roc ess, a c o p y there o f sh all b e an n ex ed , o r a sa ti sfac tory rea so n g iven for it s ab sen ce [. ]”). W e al s o not e t hatt he pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m nor m al l y w oul d be deni ed bec aus e he di d not fi le a ti m ely n o ti ce o f ap p ea l. R u le 4(a ) of the T en n esse e R u les o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re pr ovi des t hat “t he not i ce of appea l r equi r ed by R ul e 3 s hal l be f i l ed w i t h and r ece i ved by t he c le rk o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt w ith in 3 0 d a y s a ft e r t h e d a te o f e n tr y o f t h e ju d g m e n t a p p e a le d fr o m [.]

. . . ” H er e, t he tr i al cour tdi s m i s s ed t he pet i t i on for habea s corpus r el i ef on O ct ober13, 2008, and t he not i ce of appea l w as f i l ed on D ece m ber 2, 2008. T he 30- day f i l i ng per i od w as not t ol l ed by t he pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. See St at e v. L ock, 839 S. W

. 2d 436, 440 ( T enn. Cr i m . App

. 1 9 9 2 )

. Fu r t h e r m o r e , t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e wou l d n o tc a l l for w a iv e r o f t h e fi lin g re q u ir e m e n t u n d e r R u le 4 (a ). W h e n a n o p in io n w o u ld h a v e n o p re c e d e n tial v a lu e , th e C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls m ayaff i r m t he j udgm entoract i on of th e tr i al cour tbym emora ndum opi ni on w hen the j udgm ent i s r ender ed or t he act i on t aken i n a proc eedi ng w i t hout a j ur yand s uch j udgm ent oract i on i s not a det erm i nat i on of gui l t , and the evi dence does notpr eponder at e aga i ns tt he fi nd i ng of the t ri al j ud ge. S ee T enn . C t
. C ri m . A pp . R

. 20

. W e con cl ud e t hat this case s at i s fi es t he cr i t er i a of Rul e 20. A ccor di ngl y , i t i s or der ed thatt he St at e’ s m ot i on i s gr ant ed. T h e jud g m en t of

the tri al co u rtis af

firm ed in acc o rda n ce w ith R u le 20 , R u les o f th e C o u rt of C ri m i nal A pp eal s.-5- ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ CA M IL L ER. M c MUL L E N, JUDGE