### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 3, 200 6


### BR ADL EY CO PE LA ND v. TO NY PA RKE R, Warden
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 06-CR -8831 R. Lee Moore , Jr., Judge

No. W2006-00972-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Novem ber 27, 2006

The Petitioner, B radle y

Copeland, filed a

pro se p et i t i o n for a

writ of habe as cor

pus. The habe as court de nied re lief, and the Petitio ner f iled a timely

notice of a

ppeal. On a

ppeal, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to habea s corpus relief because the trial court erre d when it re -sentenc ed him to a lon g e r e ff

e c tiv e se nte nc e tha n he re c e ive d fo r his orig ina l c on vic tio ns , a nd that his g uil ty pleas we re c onstitut ionally def ec t i v e. Finding no reve rsible er ror, we aff

irm the judg ment of the ha be a s c ou rt

. 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 c o u rt, in which D AVI D G. H AYES , and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Br adley Copeland, Tiptonville, Tennesse e, Pro Se.

Michae l E. Moore, Acting Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Cameron L . Hy der, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; C. Phill ip Bivens, District Attorne y Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. F acts

I n 1998, the Petitioner pled g uilty to a g g r avate d burg lary

in case number C98-87 a nd burg lary in c a se nu mbe r C 98 -8 8. He re c e ive d a se nte nc e of six mon ths in ja il fo llo we d by tw o y e ars a ndsix
mon ths on c omm un ity

c or re c tio ns fo r the a g g ra vate d bu rg lary a nd a se nte nc e of six mo nth s in ja il followed by

one y ear and six month s o n co m m u n ity corr ections for

the burg lary

char g e. The Petitioner was se n t en ce d as a Standar d Rang e I offe nder in both ca ses, and his sentenc es ra n concur rently with one another, for an effec tive sentenc e of three y ear s. Pursuant to alleg ations that he had violate d the terms of his community corr ections sentences, the Petitioner appea red in c ourt-2-

on J uly 25, 2000, acknow ledg ed his violations, consente d to a full re vocation of his sente nce, a nd signe d an order in w hich the trial court re- sentenc ed the Petitioner. I n this orde r, the Petitioner was
re- sentenc ed to an a dditional ninety day s in ja il f ollowed by supervised pr obation for the r emainder of a five y ear

sentenc e for

his ag g ravated burg lary

conviction in case C98-87. He wa s re- sentenc ed to an additional ninety

day s in jail followed by

the re mainder of

a thre e-y ear

sentenc e on super vised pr ob a tio n f

or his bu rg lary

c on vic tio n in c a se C98 -8 8. Th e se se nte nc e s we re to ru n c on c ur re ntl y wi th
eac h other, re sulting in an e ffe ctive sente nce of five y ear s.
On Novembe r 30, 2004, the Petitioner pled g uiltyto theft of re ntal property valued at over $500 in case number C04-320 a nd was sente nce d t o two y ear s in the Tennesse e De partment of Cor re c tio n. He ple d g uil ty

to a g g ra va te d b ur g lary in ca se nu mbe r C 04 -3 21 a ndwa s se nte nc e d to six y e ars in the Te nn e sse e De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n a s Stand ardRa ng e I of fe nd e r. He a lso ple d g uil ty to l e a vin g the sc e ne of

a n a c c ide nt i n c a se nu mbe r C 04 -3 19 a ndwa s se nte nc e d to thi rt y da y s in ja il. Th e se se nte nc e s r a n c on c ur re ntl y wi th e a c h o the r, bu t c on se c uti ve ly to the s ent ences imp os e d in
case s C98-87 and C98-88.

II. Ana lys is
On appe al, the Petitioner conte nds that he is entitled to habea s corpus relief because the trial court err ed when it r e-se ntence d him to a “g reater term than his origina l conviction” af ter he ag ree d to the revocation of his sentenc es for burg lary and agg ravated burg lary . The Petitioner also c ontends that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief bec ause th e t ri al court failed to comply with the “constitutional require ments” of a proper g uiltyplea.

Article I , section 15 of the T enness ee C o n s t i t u tion gua rante es its citiz ens the rig ht to seek habea s corpus relief. I n Tenne ssee, a “per son imprisoned or re strained of [hi s or her ] l iberty , under any prete nse whatsoever .

. . may prosec ute a writ of habeas cor pus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-101 (2003). The grounds upon which habe as cor pus relief will be g rante d are very narr ow. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004); State v. Ritc hie, 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000)

. “Unlike the post-conviction petit ion, the purpose of a habea s corpus pe tition i s to c ontest void and not me rely voidable judg ments.” Hickma n, 153 S.W .3d
a t 20 ; Po tts v. Sta te , 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . T he re fo re , in or de r to state a c og niza ble c la im fo r h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f, the pe tit ion mus t c on te st a vo id j ud g me nt. I d. “ A v oidjud g me nt is on e in which the judg ment is facia lly invalid because the c ourt did not have the statutory authority to rende r such judg ment . . . . A voidable judg ment is one which is fa cially valid and re quires proof

bey ond the fa ce of

the re cord or

judgme nt to demonstrate its voidableness.” Dykes v. Compton , 978 S.W .2d 52 8, 52 9 ( Te nn . 1 99 8) (c iti ng Ar c he r v . St a te , 851 S.W .2d 157, 161 (Tenn. 1993)). Thus, a writ of habea s corpus is ava ilable only when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment o r t h e re co rd t hat the convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction to convict or sente nce the defe ndant, or that the sente nce of imprisonment or other r estraint has e x pired. Ar cher , 85 1 S. W.2 d at 16 4; P ott s , 833 S.W .2d at 62. Th us , me re cle ri cal erro rs in the te rm s o f a se nte nc e ma y

no t g ive ri se to a

vo id j ud g me nt. McChristian v. State, 159 S.W .3d 608, 610 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004)

.-3-

The pe titioner bear s the burden of showing by

a pre pondera nce of t h e ev i dence that the conviction is void or that the prison term has expired. State v. Dave nport, 980 S.W

. 2 d 4 0 7

. 409 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p

. 1 9 9 8). F urthermor e, the pr ocedur al re quirements for habea s corpus re lief ar e mandatory

and must be scr

upulously fol lowed. Ar cher , 851 S.W .2d at 165. B eca use the de te rm inatio n o f w he the r h abe a s c or pu s r e lie f s ho uld be g rante d is a qu e sti on of la w, ou r r e vie w i s de no vo wi th n o p re su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss. Ha

rt v. State , 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)

.
I n the ca se under

submissi on , the pre pondera nce of the evidenc e fa ils to establish t hat any of the Petitioner’s c onvictions are void or that his prison term has expired. C o n t ra ry to the Petitioner’s assertions, the trial court ha d the authority to enhanc e the Petitioner’s se ntence bey ond the te rm de sig na te d inthe or ig ina l ju dg me nt. Pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-36- 10 6( e )( 4) (2 00 3) , w he n a

tr ia l c ou rt re vo ke s a

c ommun ity

c or re c tio ns se nte nc e , it

ha s th e a uth or ity to re-se ntence the def

endant to any

appropriate sentenc ing alternative, including incar cer ation, for
a ny pe ri od of tim e up to the ma ximum se nte nc e pr ov ide d f

or the of fe ns e c omm itt e d, le ss any tim e actua lly serve d in any

community -base d alternative to incarc eration. See State v. Samuels, 44 S.W .3d 489, 493-94 (Te nn. 2001). The rec ord includes an order re- sentenc ing the Petitioner to five y e ars in c a se C98 -8 7 a ndto thr e e y e ars in c a se 98 -8 8. Th e se se nte nc e s f a ll w ith in the app ro pr ia te sentenc ing r ang e provide d for the a g g ravated burg lary char g e (thre e to six y ear s) and the bur g lary char g e (two to four

y ear s). The Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this iss ue. Finally , the P etitioner’s a ssertion that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief bec ause the trial
c ou rt fa ile d to c omp ly

wi th the “ c on sti tut ion a l r e qu ir e me nts ” a t th e Pe tit ion e r’ s g uil ty ple a s is without merit. As stated by the habe as court, “Petit i oner makes some alleg ations which mig ht be the ba sis fo r a

Pe tit ion fo r P os t- Con vic tio n Re lie f, a lth ou g h ther e is no a lle g a tio n f or Pos tConviction Relief. Any

such petition would also be tim e- barr ed. The sentenc es of the pe titioner have not y et expired nor ar e they void.” We ag ree

. III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the for eg oing r easoning and authorities, we af firm the habe as court’s jud g me nt.

________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE