### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary24, 200 6 BAR RY SOTH ERL AN D v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Marshall County No. 16098 J. B. Cox, Judge

No. M2005- 00565-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Fe bruary 17, 2006
The pe titioner filed a writ of habea s corpus in Mar shall County , the county in which he wa s convicted. He is inca

rce rate d in Way ne County . The trial c ourt dismissed his petit ion for writ of habea s corpus beca

use it wa s not f

iled in the county in w hich he is loc ated and bec ause the petition didno t st a te su ff

ic ie nt g ro un ds . We a ff

ir m th e de c isi on of

the ha be a s c or pu s c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court is Aff irm ed
J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
Ba rry Sotherland, Pro Se, Clifton, Tennessee

. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Mike McCowen, D istr i ct At t o rney Gene ral; and Weakley

E. Ba rnar d, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .

OP IN ION
A Marsha ll Count y

jury convicted the peti tioner of a g g ravated ra pe and a g g ravated kid na pp ing fo r an in c ide nt that oc c ur re d o n Jun e 2, 19 86 . T he tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d him t o concur rent life se ntence s as a Rang e I I , espec ially ag g ravated offe nder. O n appea l to this Court, the petitioner arg ued that there was insufficient evidenc e to support his conviction and that the trial court err ed in re fusing to gr ant a n ew t ri al bec ause the State failed to provide exculpatory evidenc e and there was a dditional or new e vidence

. State v. Ba rry Sotherland, No. 87-293- I I I , 1988 WL 60383-2-

( T e n n . Crim

. A p p . , a t N a s h v il le , Ju n e 1 4 , 1 9 8 8 ) , p e r m. ap p . d e n ie d , ( T e n n. A u g . 2 9 , 1 9 8 8 )

. We found these issues to be without merit and aff irmed the judg ments of the trial c ourt. I d.
On Ap ri l 29 , 2 00 4, thepe tit ion e r f ile d a pro se pe tit ion fo r writ of ha be a s cor pu s in Ma rs ha ll Cou nty . T he ha

be a s c ou rt in Ma

rs ha ll Cou nty , su mma

ri ly dis mis se d the pe tit ion e r’ s w ri t be c aus e
“ it i s n ot f ile d in the c ou rt c los e st to the loc a tio n in w hic h th e de fe nd a nt i s h ou se d” a nda lso be c aus e the “Writ of Habe as Corpus doesn’t state sufficient g rounds for this court to entertain said motion,” by written orde r on May

19, 2004. The pe titioner then fil ed a motion on J une 8, 2004, to re consider or in the alternative a noticeof appe al which wa s denied on F ebrua ry 2, 2005. Subsequently , he filed a “Motion for

Court to Ta

ke J udicial Notice of

Adjudication Fa cts and L aw” on Fe bruary 11, 2005, which was denied by order on Fe bruary 16, 2005. The pe titioner filed a notice of appe al on Fe bruary 28, 2005. AN AL YSI S
The de t er m i n at i on of whe ther to g rant ha beas c orpus re lief is a question of law . See M cLan eyv . Be l l , 5 9 S

. W

. 3 d 9 0 , 9 2 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ). As s u ch , we wi l l re v i ew t h e t ri al co u rt ’s fi n d i n gs de no vo wi th ou t a pres umpti on of c or re c tne ss. I d. Mo re ov e r, it i s th e pe tit ion e r’ s b ur de n to demonstrate, by

a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e, “that the sentenc e is void or t hat the conf inement is ill eg al.” Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

. Article I , section 15 of the T ennesse e Con s t i t ution gua rante es an a ccuse d the rig ht to seek habea s corpus re lief. See Taylor v. State, 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 convict or sentenc e the de fendant or that the def endant is still im prisoned despite the e x piration of his sentenc e. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993); Potts v. Sta te , 8 3 3 S

. W

. 2 d 6 0 , 6 2 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 2 )

. I n o t h e r w o r d s , h a b e a s c o rp u s r e l i e f m a y b e s o u g ht o nly when the judgment is void, not mere ly voidable. See Tay lor, 995 S.W .2d at 83. “A void judg ment ‘i s o n e i n w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n ti s f a c i a l l y i n v a l i d b e c au s e t h e c o u r tl a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o r au t h o r i ty to rende r t he judgment or beca use t he def

endant’ s sentence has expired.’ We have rec og nized that a sente nce imposed in dir ect contra vention of a statute, for example, is void and illega l.” Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Tay lor, 955 S.W .2d at 83).
Howeve r, i f after a revie w of the habeas petit ioner’s filings t he trial court determines that the petitioner would not be e ntitled to relief, then the pe tition m ay be summarily dismiss ed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109; State e x rel. B yrd v. Boma r, 381 S.W .2d 280 (Tenn. 1964). Further, a trial court may summarily

dismiss a petiti on for writ of habea s corpus without the appointment of a lawy er and without an evidenti ar y h ea ri n g if there is nothing on the fa ce of the judg ment to indicate that the convictions addre ssed there in are void. Pass ar el l a v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), super cede d by

statute as stated in State v. Steven S. Ne wman, No. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).-3-

Th e pr oc e du ra l r e qu ire m e n t s f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f a r ema nd a tory

a ndmus t be sc ru pu lou sly followed. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16, 19-20 (Te nn. 2004); Arc her, 851 S.W.2d at 165. For the bene fit of i n d i viduals such as the pe titioner, our leg islature has e x plicitlylaid out the formal require ments for a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus at Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 29-21- 107:

(a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, sig ned either by the party for whose be nefit it is intende d, 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 the p er s on in whose beha lf the writ is soug ht, is il leg ally restrained of liberty , and the pe rson by

whom and plac e whe re r estraine d, mentioning the name of such per son, if known, and, if unkno wn, describing the person with as muc h particula rity as pra cticable ; (2) The cause or pre tens e o f such restraint ac cording to the best information of the applicant, a nd if it be by

virtue of any leg al process, a copy there of shall be annexed, 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 ad j u dg ed upon a prior proce eding of the same char acte r, to the best of the a pplicant’s knowledg e and be lief; and (4) That it is the first application for the writ, or, i f a pr evious application has been made, a copy of the pe tition and procee dings t h ere on shall be produc ed, or satisfac tory

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

“A ha beas c orpus court may

properly choose to dismiss a petition for fa iling to comply with the statutory proce dural re quirements.” H ickman, 153 S.W.3d at 21. We first point out t hat the petitioner is in custody in Way ne C ounty

. He f

iled his petition for writ of habe as cor

pus in Marshall County , the county in which he wa s convicted. Te nnessee Code An no ta te d s e c tio n 2 9- 21 -1 05 re qu ir e s th a t a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionbe fi le d w he rethe pe tit ion e r i s located unle ss sufficient re ason for filing e lsewher e is stated. The petitioner ar g ues that a suf ficient rea son is, “ the convicting court can corr ect an illega l se ntence at any time and is in possession of the re c or ds pe rt a ini ng to the se nte nc e .” Ho wev e r, thi s Co urt ha s r e pe a te dly he ld that th is i s n ot a sufficie nt rea son for filing i n a court other than one wher e the pe titioner is located. See e .g . L arry L . Halliburto n v. State, W2001-00755-CCA-R3-CO, 2002 WL 1558611 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 30, 2002), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. J ul. 1, 2002); J immyWay ne Wilson v. S tate, No.-4-

03 C01 -9 80 6- CR- 00 20 6, 19 99 WL 42 04 95 (T e nn . Crim . App ., a t Kno xvill e , J un e 24 , 1 99 9) , p e rm . ap p . d e n ie d ( T e n n . N o v . 2 2 , 1 9 9 9 ) ; C h ar le s B r y a n t v

. St a te , N o . 0 3 C0 1

- 9 8 0 3

- CR

- 0 0 1 1 5 , 1 9 9 9 WL 274849 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, May 4, 1999). The pe titioner has failed to c omply with Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 29-21-105, and this alone is an adequate basis for the trial court to dismiss his petition. See Clifford W. Roger s v. State, No. W2002-02268-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 326 (Tenn. C rim. App., at J ackson, Ma

rch 25, 2003)

. Even thoug h there is sufficient support for the summary dismiss al of the pe titioner’s writ of habea s corpus, we would also like to addre ss certain points on the merits. The petitioner a rg ues on appea l, that his sentence is illeg al bec ause h e wa s s en t ence d to concur rent life se ntence s for two convictions stemming f

rom an incide nt that occur red while he wa s out on parole. The State arg ues that this is not an issue of a void judgment, but rather a clerical er

ror in the tria l court.
Un de r R ule32 (c )( 3) of

the Te nn e sse e Rul es of Crimi na l Pr oc e du re , if “ a de fe nd a nt i s convicted of

multipl e offe nses from one trial or wher e the defe ndant has additional sentenc es not y et fully serve d as the re sult of the convictions in the same or othe r court and the law r equire s consec utive sentenc es, the sente nce sha ll be consec utive whether the j udg ment expli citly so order s or not

. This rule shall apply : (A) To a sentence for a felony committed while on parole for a felony . . . .” Unde r this rule, it is clear that the petitioner indee d should have be en sente nced to c onsecutive se nte nc e s. Th e pe tition e r re lie s upo n McL a ne y v. B e ll, 59 S.W. 3d 90 (T e nn . 2 00 1) , to su pp ort hi s arg ume nt.
We re c e ntl y

fac e d a simila r i ssu ein T ho mas Braden v. Bell , No . M 20 04 -01 38 1-C CA -R 3-H C, 2 0 0 5 W L 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 ( T e n n . C r i m . A p p . , a tN a s h v i l l e , A u g . 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( n o ap p l i c a t i o n f i l e d )

. In Thomas B rade n, the petitioner filed a habea s corpus p et i t i o n arg uing that his sentence w as illeg al and, ther efor e, void

. T h e b as i s of his arg ument was that the judg ment ref lected a thirty perc ent rele ase eligibility as opposed to the one hundred per cent r elea se elig ibilit y require d beca

use he w as convicted f

or ra pe. Thomas B rade n, 2004 WL 2008200, at *1. The petiti oner in that case arg ued that his conviction was fa cially vo i d b ec au s e it was in contra vention to the statute in place at the tim e . I d. a t *3 . We he ld that th e pe tit ion e r w a s n ot e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s re lie f, e ve n tho ug h h is sentenc e wa s not proper u n d er t h e s t at u t e. I d. We pointed to the fac t that the case s to which the petitioner cited w here habea s corpus re lief wa s g rante d, including Mc L aney v Be ll, were also ca ses w h e r e t h e p e t i t i o n e r s h a d p l e d g u i l t y. In T h o m a s B r a d e n , t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d b y a j u r y. We went on to state:

[T]he pr e sent

pe tit ion e r w a s c on vic te d b y a jury a ndse nte nc e d b y

the tria l c ou rt

. There fore , the trial court’s failureto properly mark the judgme nt did not de prive the petitio n er o f an y

expectation as to rele ase e ligibility , beca use none e ver e x isted. Moreove r, the trial c ourt’s er ror d i d not chang e the f act that the pe titioner was statutorily require d to serve one hundred perce nt of sentence due to his classification-5-

as a multiple rapist. As the ha beas c ourt corr ectly

noted, the ca lculation of the p e ti ti o n e r ’ s s e n te n c e w a s “ a n o p e r a ti o n o f la w ” a n d le f t n o r o o m f

o r d is c r e ti o n . We find this sharply

distinguished form a ca se in which the petitioner is extended a plea ag ree ment containing an illegal sente ncing provision and ac cepte d the neg otiated se nte nc e to h is d e tr ime nt.

I d. a t *4 . We c on c lud e d th a t th e pe tit ion e r w a s n ot e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s re lie f be c aus e “ [w]hi le the se nte nc e s a

re , o n th e ir

fa c e , il le g a l, we c on c lud e that th e ill e g a lit y is n ot s o e g re g iou s a s to vo id the s entenc es.” I d. at *5. We based this conclusion on Coleman v. Morg an, 159 S.W .3d 887 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004), in which we stated that “me re clerical err ors in te rms of a sentenc e may not give rise to a void judg ment.” Coleman, 159 S.W.3d at 890. Furthermore , we noted in Thoma s Br aden, a trial c ourt ca n amend a

judgme nt at any

time. 2004 WL2008200, at *4.

I n the pre sent ca se, the pe titioner did not plead g uilty , but wa s convicted by a jury . The petitioner is complaining of being sentenc ed to t wo concur rent life se ntence s, instead of be ing sentenc ed to two conse cutive life se ntence s. As in Thomas Br aden, t h e trial court’s er ror did not c ha ng e the fa c t th a t th e pe tit ion e r i s le g a lly re qu ir e d to se rv e tw o co ns e c uti ve lif e se nte nc e s b e c aus e he c omm itt e d a fe lon y wh ile on pa ro le fo r a fe lon y . A s inTh oma s B ra de n, app e llant’ s a pp ro pria te reme dy for this deprivation is for the trial court to amend the judgme nt to ref lect that the petitioner m u s ts e r v e h i s t w o l i f

e s e n t e n c e s c o n s e c u t i v e l y.

CO NC LU SION
For the fore g oing rea sons, w e aff irm the habe as court’s dismiss al of the pe titioner’s writ of ha be a s c or pu s.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE