### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary10, 200 6 VICTO R THOMPS ON v . DAVID MIL LS, WARDEN, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County No. 5993 Joseph H. Walk er, Judge

No. W2005-02197-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Fe bruary 9, 2006

Th e pe tit ion e r, Vi c tor

Th omp so n, app e a ls the de nia l of ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f c on te nd ing that: ( 1) his sentenc e wa s outside the applicable rang e and was, therefor e, il leg al; and (2) that the indictment was fata lly defe ctive. Upon r eview, we co n clude that the de fendant’s sentenc e wa s within the ag ree d rang e and that the rema ining issue is wa ived, as it is raised f or the fir st tim e on appe al. Ther efor e, we a ffirm the de nial of habe as re lief in ac cordance w ith Rul e 20, Rules of t h e C o u rt o f Criminal Appea ls. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in w h ic h D AVI D G. H AYES and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined. Victor Thompson, He nning, T ennesse e, Pro Se.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , Ass ist a nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorne y Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
I n 1992, the petitioner pled g uilty to se cond deg ree murder (a Class A f elony ) and a g g ravated a ssa ult (a Cla ss C fe lon y ) i n e xch a ng e fo r a g re e d Rang e I I I se nte nc e s o f fi fty

y e ars a ndte n y e ars , respe ctively , to be serve d concur rentl y . On Aug ust 19, 2005, the petitioner filed a pro se pe tition for writ of habea s corpus a ll egi n g solely that his sentence s were illega l and void based upon the Supreme Court’s de cision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Upon revie w, the court summarily dismiss ed the petition findi ng that the petitioner’s c laim was constitutional in nature and, there fore , not cog nizable in a habe as petition and that the pe titioner was not entitled to relief as i t had bee n previously held that B lakely

does not apply

retroa ctively

to case s on c oll a te ra l r e vie w. Se e Do na ld B ranc h v . St a te , W2 00 3- 03 04 2- CCA -R 3- PC, 2 00 4 T e nn . Crim. App. LEXI S 1148 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Dec . 21, 2004), a p p. denied, ( Tenn. May 23, 2005). On a

ppeal to this court, the pe titioner contends that: (1) his sente nce is illeg al bec ause “ theSecond degr ee murder , a Cl as s A fel ony , ca r r i ed a R ang e II I sen t enc e o f b et ween fort y an d s i xt y y ear s . See 1 T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 1 1 2 (c)( 1 ) ( 1 9 9 2 ). -2- trial court was well out side it [ sic] jurisdi ction and authority to sentence the [petiti oner] bey ond the maxi mum of the Rang e, abse nt a finding of gu i l t y by a jury of piers [sic],” and (2) the indictment was fatally

defe ctive as it did not alleg e the mens r ea e lement of the c harg ed off ense. “The writ of [habea s corpus] will is sue in T ennesse e only when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judg ment or t he record of the proceeding s upon which the judgme nt is render ed that a c onvicting court wa s without juris d i ct ion or authority to sentence a def

endant, or that a def

endant’ s sentence of imprisonment or other r estraint has e x pired.” State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Arc her v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ). “Avoid judgment is one in whic h the judgme nt is facially

invalid because the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judg ment or bec ause the defe ndant’s sente nce ha s expired.” Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. Wit h reg ard to the illeg al sentenc e, the pe titioner alleg es t hat hi s sentence of fifty y ear s for second de g ree murder w as bey ond the max i mum allowed for a Rang e I I offe nder c onvicted of a C l as s A f el o n y . I n i t i al l y , we n o t e t h atev en i f t h e p et i t i o n eragr ee d t o a se n t en ce o u t s i d e th e r an ge y et within the maxi mum for the offense class, the judg ment would stand. I ndeed, our supreme c ourt has held that a

hy brid plea, know ingly

and voluntarily

enter ed, “w aives a ny

irreg ularity

as to offe nder classificat i o n o r re l ease elig ibilit y .” See H icks v. State, 945 S.W .2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997)

. Howeve r, in this c ase, the petitioner ag ree d to be sentenc ed as a Rang e I I I offe nder, and the sentenc e was within that rang e. The ref ore, the fac e of the judgme nt doe s not c ontrave ne the statute. To the 1 e xten t that th e B lake ly

iss ue is a pp e a le d, we a g re e wi th the ha be a s c ou rt

that it is n ot c og niza

ble in a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit iona s it

pr e se nts a

c on sti tut ion a l c la im that is proper ly a dd re sse d ina

po stconviction petit ion. Moreove r, our supreme court ha s held that Tenne ssee’ s sentencing proce dures d o n o t vi o late th e Si xth A me n d me n t r ig h t to tria l by ju r y a s d e s c r ib e d inB la k e ly

. St a te v . G o me z, 163 S.W .3d 632 (Tenn. 2005) . There fore , this iss ue is without merit. The pe titioner also arg ues for the first time on appea l that the indictment failed to a lleg e the mens rea element of

the charg ed off

ense and is, theref

ore, f atally defe ctive. I ssues that wer e not asserted in the orig inal petition filed in the habeas court will not be considered f or the fir st tim e on app e a l. S ta te v. Tu rn e r, 91 9 S. W.2 d 3 46 , 3 56 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 95 ). Th e re fo re , th e iss ue is deeme d waived. Upon re view of the rec ord, brief s o f t h e parties, and applica ble law, we conclude that the petitioner has not esta

blished that he i s en t i t l ed t o habea s corpus re lief. Ther efor e, we aff irm the denial of habea s relief in acc ordanc e with Rule 20 of t he Court of Criminal Appea ls of Tenne ssee.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE