### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 22, 200 9
TIMOT HY D. QUA LLS v. R ICKY J. BE LL, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 07-C- 3796 Ham ilton Gayden, Jud ge

No. M2008- 01246-CCA -R3-HC - F iled April 28, 2009

I n 2003, the Petitioner, Timothy D. Qualls, pled guilty to second de g ree murder, a nd the trial cour

t sentenc ed him to se rve eig hteen y ear s. The Petitioner file a petition for habe as cor pus relief , and the habea s court denie d his pe tition. On appe al, the Petitioner alleg es the ha beas c ourt err ed bec ause: (1) the trial court sentenced the Petitioner in contravention of his constitutional rights; and (2) the trial court sentenc ed the Petitioner in c ontrave ntion of state statutes. After a thoroug h revie w of the
re c or d a nd re le va nt a uth or iti e s, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he ha be a s c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in w h ich D AVI D H. W ELLES and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J ., joined. Timothy D. Qualls, Pro se, Na shville, Tennessee

. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l E . M oo re , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; D a vid H. Findley , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Victor S. Johnson, I I I , Di s t ri ct At t orney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound On April 4 , 2 0 0 3 , th e Pe ti ti o n e r p le d g u il ty to s e c o n d

d e g r e e mu

r d e r , an d th e tr ia l c ourt sentenc ed him to serve e ighte en y ear s. The Petitioner filed a petiti o n fo r habe as cor

pus relief on Dec ember

27, 2007, and the ha

beas c ourt denied him re lief. I t is from t h i s j u d gm en t that the Petitioner now appe als.

II. Ana lys is On appe al, the Petitioner cla ims the habea s court er red beca use: (1) the trial court se ntence d2

him in c on tr a ve nti on

of his c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts ; and (2 ) t he tr ia l c ourt

se nte nc e d h im i n contravention of state statutes.
Article I , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constituti on g uara ntees the rig ht to seek habe as cor pus relief

. Se e Fa ulk

ne r v . S tate , 226 S.W .3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007) . Tenne ssee s t atut e, howe ver, g overns the e x erc ise of this constitutional guar antee

. See T

. C

. A. § 2 9 -2 1 -1 0 1 (2 0 0 6 ). Al t h o u gh statute does not limit t he number of re quests for habeas corpus relief a petitioner may make, it does
narr owly limit the g rounds upon which a court may g rant habeas corpus relief. Tay lor v . S tate , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . The pe titioner must demonstrate by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that “the se ntence is void or that confineme nt is il leg al.” W y att v . S tate , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). In other wor ds, a petit ioner must base his request for ha beas c orpus re lief upon the following very narr ow g rounds: (1) a

cl ai m t h at , b eca

use the c onvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction or
a uth or ity to se nte nc e the pe tit ion e r, the c on vic tin g c ourt ’s jud g me nt i s f a c ia lly inv a lid and , th us , void; or (2) a

claim that the petitioner’ s sentence has expired. S te p h e n s o n v

. Ca r lton , 2 8 S.W .3d 91 0, 91 1 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; Ar c he r v . State , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) . Also, “[a]n i lleg al
sen te n c e , o n e w h o s e im

p o s it io n d ir e c tl y c o n tr a v e n e s a s ta tute , is c o n s id e r e d v o id an d ma y be set aside at any

ti me.” May v . Carlton , 2 4 5 S

. W

. 3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 4 (T en n
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Sta te v . B ur k ha rd , 56 6 S. W.2 d 8 71 , 8 73 (T e nn . 1 97 8) . In c on tr a st, a vo ida ble jud g me nt is “on e that is fa c ia lly va lid
and re qu ir e s th e int

ro ducti on of pro of

be y on d th e fa c e of

the re c or d o r j ud g me nt t o e sta bli shits validity .” Taylor , 9 55 S.W. 2d at 83 ; se e Sta te v . R ic hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 633 (Tenn. 2000)

. A h a be a s c ourt

is n ot r e qu ir e d, a s a matt e r of law, to g ra nt t he wr it o r c on du c t an in qu ir y int o the allegations contained in the pe tition. See T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 9 ( 20 06 ). I f t he pe tit ion

fa ils on its fac e to state a c og nizable claim, it may be summarily

dismiss ed by

the trial cour

t. Se e Sta te e

x . r e l. Byrd v. B omar , 381 S.W .2d 280, 2 8 3 (1 9 6 4 ); T.C.A. § 29-21-109. “ I f fr om the showing of the petitioner, the plaintiff w ould not be entitled to any relief , the writ may

be re fused.” T.C.A. § 29-21- 109.
Whether habe as cor pus relief should be g rante d is a question of law. Ed war ds v . S tate , 269 S

. W

. 3 d 9 1 5 , 9 1 9 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 8 )

. T h u s , w e a p p l y de novo revie w and a ffor d no presumption of
corr ectne ss to the finding s and conc lusions of the court below. Su mm e rs v . S tate , 212 S.W .3d 251, 25 5 ( Te nn . 2 00 7) ; Hoga n v . M ill s , 168 S.W .3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)

. A. Co nst it ut ion al C lai m
I n this a ppeal, the Petitioner claims that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief bec ause the trial court sentenced him in contravention of hi s constitutional rig hts, as descr ibed in Apprendi v. New Jerse y
. 5 3 0 U

. S

. 4 6 6 ( 2 0 0 0 )

. W e n o t e t h e P e t i t i o n e r i s a d a m an t t h a t h e i s n o t ar g u i n g t h a this sentenc e wa s imposed in violation of his c onstitut ional rig ht to a jury trial as ar ticulated in Blak

e ly v. W ashington , r a the r, he argue s th a t hi s r ig ht a jur y tr ia l w a s in fr ing e d u

po n as in ter pre te d in Apprendi

. Se e Blak

e ly , 54 2 U. S. 2 96 (2 00 4) ; see also Apprendi , 5 3 0 U

. S

. 4 6 6

. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, he ar g ues that t he trial court lacked jurisdi ction to enhanc e his sentenc e by two y ear s without a jury making a finding of those enha nceme nt fac ts or without usin g a s t an d ar d g reater than a3

preponde ranc e of the evidenc e of the exis tence of enha nceme nt fac tors.
The United St ates Supreme Court cre ated a brig ht line rule in Apprendi v. New Je rsey that “any fac t [other than a

prior convic tion] that incre ases the pe nalty for a crime be y ond the pre scribed statut or y ma ximummus t be su

bmi tte d to a jur

y , and pr ov e d b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t.” 53 0 U .S. at 490. In Blak

e ly v. W ashington , the Court h eld that “the ‘ statutory maxi mum’ for Apprendi purp os e s is the ma ximumse nte nc e a jud g e may

imp os e so le ly

on the ba sis of the fa c ts r e fl e c te d in the jur y ve rd ic t or

a dmi tte d by the de fe nd ant. I n o the r w or ds , th e re le va nt ‘ statut or

y ma ximum ’ i s not the maxi mum sentence a judge may impose after

finding additional fac ts, but the max imum he may impose without any additional finding s.” 542 U.S. at 303-04. Blak e ly is a furthe r cla

rification of the Six th amendment rig ht to a jury trial descr ibed in Apprendi

. We have pr eviously

held that while “[ i] t is constitutional error in violation of a defe ndant’s rig ht to trial by

jury for the trial court to inc rea se a sentenc e above the ‘statutory maxi mum’ sentence based upon f

acts, other

than prior convictions, not f ound by a jury ,” such a

n err or would “r ender

the judgme nt me rely

voidable, and not void.” Billy Merle M eek s v. Rick y J. B ell, W

arden , No. M2005- 00626-CCA-R3-HC , 2 0 0 7 W L 4116486, at *7 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 13, 2007), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Apr. 7, 2008). Thus, such a claim is not a cog nizable Tennesse e habe as corpus c laim. Id. Moreove r, the Petitioner’s c laim re quires this Court to look bey ond the fa ce of the judg ment, which is beyond the scope of habe as cor pus relief

. See Taylor , 955 S

. W

. 2d at 83. The Petitioner is not entitled to habea s relief on this iss ue.
B. St at ut or y C lai m
Th e Pe tit ion e r ne xt c on te nd s that he is e nti tle d to re lie f b e c a us e the tr ia l c ourt

se nte nc e d h im in violation of t he Tennessee Criminal Reform Act of 1989. See T.C.A. § 40-35-101 e t seq. The Petitioner directs this Court to the rec ord and the transcr ipt of his se ntencing hear ing as evidenc e of the tr ia l c ourt ’s e rr or s in a

pp lying mit ig a tin g and e nh a nc e me nt f a c tor s and me e tin g the re qu ir e me nts of a proper g uil ty

p le a h e ar in g , a s p r e s c r ib e d

b y Ru le 1 1 o f

th e T e n n e s s e e Ru le s o f Cr im in al Procedur e.
As we state d above, in or der to g rant ha beas r elief, the re must be an err or on the fa ce of the judgme nt that rende rs the petitioner’ s judgme nt void. See Taylor , 955 S.W .2d at 83. The Petitioner pled g uilty

to second deg ree murder, which is a Class A fe lony , and the tria l court cla ssified him as
a Stand ard , Ra

ng e I of fe nd e r. T. C.A

. § 39 -1 3- 21 0( b) (2 00 1)

. A de fe nd ant c on vic te d of a Cla ss A felony and classified a s a Standard, Ra ng e I offe nder ma

y be sente nced to se rve be tween f ifteen a nd tw e nty -f ive y e ars . T .C. A. § 4 0- 35 -1 12 (a )( 1) (2 00 1) . T he Pe tit ion e r wa s sen te nc e d to e ig hte e n y e ars , wh ic h is wi th in th e statut or y ra ng e . H is j ud g me nt i s n ot v oid on its fa c e , a

nd he is n ot e nti tle d to relief on this iss ue.
III. Conclusi on
After a thoroug h revie w of the record a nd rele vant authorities, we conclude that the habe as4

court prope rly

dismiss ed the Petit ioner’s petition for habeas c orpus re lief. Ac cording ly , we a ffirm the judg ment of the ha

beas c ourt.

________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE