### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Augus t 7, 200 7
STEV E V . WA LKER

v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 06-02-0151 Jose ph H . Walker, III, P residing Ju dge

No. W2006-01170-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled October 9, 2007

The Petitioner, Steve V. Walker , ap p eals fr om the Har deman County Circuit Court’s summary dismiss al of his pro se petition f or a writ of habe as cor

pus. In 1987, a jury

convicted the Petitioner of ag gravated robbe ry , and he w as sentenced to life imprisonment for an espe cially

ag gravated of fe ns e a s a Ra nge I I , p e rs ist e nt o ff e nd e r. Th e ma in f

oc us of the Pe tit ion e r’ s a

rgume nt i s th at hi s sentenc e wa s not authorized by the 1982 SentencingAct . The ha beas c orpus cour

t dismi ssed the pe tit ion , fi nd ing that the Pe tit ion e r’ s iss ue s ha d a lr e a dy be e n a dd re sse d in his fi rs t pe tit ion

fo r a writ of habe as cor

pus and that he failed to state a cognizable claim for r elief. The Petitioner has fa iled to alleg e any

ground that would re nder the judgme nt of conviction void or his sentence illega l. The order summarily

dismiss ing the petition is affirmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and D. KEL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J J ., joined.
Steve W. W alker , Pro Se.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; B re nt C . Ch e rr y , A ssi sta nt Atto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Michae l Dunavant, District Attorne y Gene ral; and James Pentecost, Ass i s t an t District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.O n d ire c t ap p e a l, this C o u rt se t f o rth the fac ts un d e rlying his c o n v ic tio n fo r a rm e d ro b b e ry: 1

[A ]b o u t 1 2 :1 5 a .m . o n the e v e n ing o f D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 6 [,] th e G u lf S ta tio n o n S o u th B r o a d in C hat t ano o ga was r o b b ed

. M ars ha A nd ert o n was worki ng t he ni ght s h ift w hen t he [P et i t i o ner and Je f f er y B ooze r ] e n t er ed an d r obbed h er a t g u n poi n t

. She t es t i f i ed at t r i al t h at [ t h e Pet i t i on er ] h ad a h an dg u n
. Sh e cou l d n ot r ec al l i f B ooze r w as a r med. Sh e al s o t es t i f i ed t h at a ppr ox i mat el y $134. 00
w as take n in t he ro b b ery; she i d en t i f i ed b o t h [the P eti t i o ne r an d B o o ze r] as the c ulp rit s.

M r s
. Andert on’ s hu s band, H om er , was pre s ent at t he t i me of t he r ob bery

. H e c orr ob orat ed hi s wi f e’ s t es t i mon y an d i den t i f i ed [ t h e Pet i t i on er ]

. T h e wi t n es s wa s u n abl e t o i den t i f y t he second rob b er, as he was ob scur ed f rom s i ght by a ci garet t e rack.

O f f i cer s M i l l er an d K enn edy o f t he C hat t anooga P ol i ce D epar t ment t es t i f i ed t hat t hey pul l ed i nt o t he G ul f

M art Stat i o n f

o r ci garet t es and o b ser ved t he ro b b e ry i n pro gres s. T hey p urs ued t he [P et i t i o ner and B o o zer] i nt o s o m e nearb y wo o d s and ap p rehend ed t hem

. [ T he P et i t i o ner] was f o und h i di n g i n a c r ee k

. H i dden on h i m wa s a pi l l owc as e con t ai n i n g $134. 00. B ooze r a t t empt ed t o e s ca pe b y c lim b ing up a ste e p hill, b u t he w a s a p p re h e n d e d w h e n he b e c a m e e n ta n g le d in so m e vin e s. B o th were ret urned t o t he scene f o r i d ent i f

i cat i o n.
S e e S ta te v. J e ff

e ry B o o z e r a n d S te p h e n V . W a lke r, N o . 1 0 6 1 , 1 9 8 8 W L 7 4 6 0 4 , a t*1 (T e n n . C rim . A p p ., K n o x v ill e , Ju ly 2 1 , 1 9 9 8 ), p e rm . t o a p p e a l d e n ie d , (T e n n . O c t. 2 4 , 1 9 9 8 ).

-2- OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound In 1987, a Ha

mi l t o nCounty

jury found the Petitioner, Steve V. Walker , guilty of ar med robber y , a Class X fe lony . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-2- 501 (1982). The Petitioner rec eived life 1 imprisonment as a Rang e I I , persistent offender sentenc ed for an espe cially ag gravated offe nse. See id. §§ 40-35-106, -107 ( 1982). This Court aff irmed the Petitioner’s c onviction on direct a ppeal. See State v. J eff

ery Boozer a nd Stephen V. Walker, N o. 1061, 1988 WL74604 (Ten n
. C ri m . App., Knoxvi lle, J uly

21, 1998), per

m. to appeal de nied, (Te nn. Oct. 24, 1998).
The Petitioner later

soug ht post-conviction relief on the basis that trial and appellate counsel rend er edi n ef

fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce
. S ee S t ev enVi n ce ntW al k er v
. S t at e, No. 03C01-9205-CR-169, 1992 WL371767 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 17, 1992). The post-convic tion court denied r elief, and this Court affirme d. I d. In November o f 2 000, the Petitioner filed his first habe as cor pus petition. S ee Steve V. Walker v. S tate, No. E2001-00322-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL1162354 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, J une 3, 2002). In that petition, the Petiti oner a lleg ed
that his sentenc e wa s illega l beca use he did not qualify

as a pe rsistent offe nder unde r Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 40-35- 107; that his sentence was improperly enhanc ed be c a us e he did no t r e c e ive the State ’s no tic e of int e nt t o s e e k e nh anc e d p un ishme nt; that the re cord of

his p ri o r cr i m inal convictions relied upon to se ntence him was inacc urate ; and that he r ece ived ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel.-3-

I d. at *1 (footnote omitted). The habea s corpus c ourt denied r elief, a nd this Court affirmed. I d. On May 10, 2006, the P etitioner filed a second petition for ha beas c orpus re lief. The pe tition is l e ngthy and rambling . A lth ou g h mu c h o f t he pe tit ion

is u ninte lli g ibl e , w e dis c e rn

fo ur ba sic
a lle g atio ns by

the Pe tit ion e r: (1) His sente nce of

life as a Rang e I I offe nder at 35% is illeg al bec ause “ under the 1982 SentencingReform Ac t[ ,] such a [sentence] didn’t exi st.” He f urther
c ha lle ng e s th e le g a lity

of his se nte nc e statin gthat he do e s n ot h ave “ the pr e re qu ist ic [s ic ] n u mber of prior convictions” to qualify for the “ enhanc ed (max imum) sentence ” of life imprisonment. Acc ordingto the Petitioner, the State failed to provide written
no tic e of its int e nt t o s e e k e nh anc e d p un ishme nt. (2) “ His sentence of life Rang e I Iat 35%” is a “void jud gem ent [si c]/sentence ” b ec ause it i s not authorized by statue. He contends that the “sen tencingjudge /court re ndere d sentenc e ‘higher’ then [sic] statutory provisions allowed . . . .” (3) The Petitioner argues he w as den i ed h i s constitutional rights of due proce ss, to a just and fair he aring , and ag ainst crue l and unusual punishment when he re ceive d the maxim um sentence of life. He contends that his se ntence was outside statuto r y gu id e li n e s an d th at e s s e nti a l e le me nts o f th e o f f e n s e w e r e used for enhanc ement purpose s. (4 ) T h e s en t en ci n g j u d ge ab u s edh i s j u d i ci al au t h o r i t y b y i mp o s i n g a “grossly” excessive se ntence

. B y or de r e nte re d M ay

16 , 200 6, th e hab e a s c or pu s c ourt de nie d r e lie f. In d oin gso , th e c ourt fi rs t noted that “[t] hese issues have alr eady been a ddresse d.” The court then e ntere d the fol l o wi ng finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law:

The De fenda

nt was c onvicted in 1987. Under Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 39 -2 -5 01 (a)( 19 81 ) ( repe a le d) , a te rm of imp ri so nme nt o f n ot l e ss t ha n te n ye ars to lif e imp ri so nme nt w a s aut

ho ri zed fo r t

he c ri me of

ro bb e ry a c c omp lis he d b y

the us e of a de a dly we a po n. Th e e vid e nc e at tr ia l e sta bli sh e d that th e Pe tit ion e r, arm e d w ith a pistol, r obbed the cler

k of a g as station. The Petitioner was convic ted of robbe ry acc omplished by

the us e of a dea dly

wea pon, there fore , the life sente nce imposed w as within the applicable r ang e of punishment for the offe nse.
Ev e n if wh at th e Pe tit ion e r a lle g e s is tr ue and th e sen tenc e is i lle g a l, i t is voidable and not void. . . .

. . . .-4- Petitioner’s sentenc es have not expi red. T h e C riminal Court ha[d] jurisdiction or authority to se ntence [the D]efenda nt to the sentenc e he re ceived. Habe as cor

pus relief is not appropriate

. It is fr om t

his or de r s umm ari ly

dis mis sin ghis se c on d p e tit ion that th e Pe tit ion e r n owa pp e a ls.
AN AL YSI S The de termination of whe ther to grant ha beas c orpus re lief is a question of law a nd our re view is de novo. See S tate v. Summers, 212 S.W .3d 251, 262 (Tenn. 2007) . The Te nnessee Constitution gua ra nte e s a c onvic te d cr imi na l def e nd ant the ri ght to se e k ha be a s cor pu s r e lie f. Se e Te nn . Co ns t. art. I , § 15. Howeve r, the grounds upon which habea s corpus re lief will be grante d are very narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A petition for habe as co rp u s re l ief may only be gra nte d whe n th e jud g me nt i s sh own to be vo id, rathe r t ha n me re ly vo ida ble

. I d. A jud g me nt is v oid only when it appea

rs upon the fac e of the judgme nt or the re cord of

the proc eeding s upon which the judgme n t i s rende red that the convictingcourt wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence a defe ndant or that a

defe ndant’s sente nce ha s expired. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993).
A sentenc e imposed in direc t contrave ntion of a statute is illega l and thus void. Stephenson
v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) . On the other hand, a voida

ble judg ment or sentenc e is one which is fa cially

valid and which r equire s evidenc e beyond t h e fa ce o f t h e judgment or the
rec ord of the pr ocee dings to e stablish its invalidity

. Taylor, 995 S.W .2d at 83. A petitioner be ars the burden of establishing a

void judgment or

illega l c onfinement by a preponde ranc e of the e vidence

. Ho g an v . M ill s, 16 8 S. W.3 d 7 53 , 7 55 (T e nn . 2 00 5) . F ur the rm or e , it

is p e rm issib le fo r a

c ourt to summarily

dismiss a habe as cor

pus p et i t i o n , without the appointment of counsel a nd without an evidentiar y hearing, if

there is nothing on the fa ce of the re cord or

judgme nt to indic at e that the convictions or sente nces a ddresse d there in are void. Passare lla v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). The majority

of the Petitioner’s a

rgu m en t s

— ch all eng ing a s illega l the imposit ion of a life
se nte nc e fo r t

he of fe ns e of arm e d ro bb e ry

—h ave pr e vio us ly be e n a dd re sse d b y thi s Co ur t in his fi rs t habea s corpus p et i t i o n
. See Walker, 2002 WL1162354. The Petitioner ag ain asser ts that such a sentenc e is outside the sentenc ing guidelines. Under the applica

ble law, a term of imprisonment of not less than ten year s to life imprisonment wa s authorized for the crime of robbe ry acc omplished by th e u s e o f a d e a d l y w e a

p o n
. S e e i d

. at* 2 ; s e e a l s o T e nn
. C o d e Ann
. § 3 9

- 2

- 5 0 1 ( 1 9 8 2 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, a life se ntence was within the applica ble ra ng e of punishment for

the offe nse.
Ne xt, th e Pe tit ion e r c onte nd s th at a lif e se nte nc e a s a

Rang e I Iof

fe nd e r a t 35 % r e le a se elig ibilit y did not e x ist unde r the 1982 Ac t. Release e ligibility was set f orth at sec tion 40-35-501(e ) (S up p. 19 85 ) ( repe a le d) : “ R e l e a s e e lig ibi lity fo r a ny de fe nd ant who is s e nte nc e d f or bo th a n e sp e c ia lly ag gravated offe nse and a s a per sistent offende r shall occ ur af ter ser vice of forty perc ent (40%) of the
a c tua l se nte nc e imp os e d. ” Th e jud g me nt fo rm state s th at th e Pe tit ion e r i s “ pe rs ist e nt” and “ e sp e c ia lly ag gravated,” but it is silent on the actual perc entag e imposed. Thus, pursuant to the applicable statute,-5-

se rv ic e of the Pe tit ione r’ s se nte nc e wa s at 40 % a nd oc c ur re d b y op e ra tio n o f l aw. Mo re ov e r, it i s clea r fr om the sentenc ing tr anscript that defense counsel wa s awa re of 40% ser vice.
Th e Pe tit ion e r a lso argue s th at his re c or d of crimi na l convic tio ns wa s in a c c ur ate and tha t hi s offe nse wa s improperly cl assi fied a s an espe cially ag gravated one. Ag ain, this argument has bee n addre ssed. See Walker, 2002 WL 1162354, at *2. The Petitioner was on probation a tt h e t i m e he committed the ag g ravated robbe ry at issue; this just ified the cl assification of the offe nse as a n e sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d o ne . Se e id. ; se e a lso Te nn . Co de Ann. § 4 0- 35 -1 07 (1 98 2) . Re g ard inghis status as a pe rsistent offe nder, the State g ave timely n o t ice that it intended to see k enhanc ed punishment relying on his 1980, 1981, and 1984 fe lony convictions. See Walker, 2002 WL 1162354,
at *2 ; se e a lso Te nn . Co de Ann. § 4 0- 35 -1 06 . T his iss ue is w ith out me ri t.
F ina lly , th e Pe tit ion e r c la ims that he wa s su bje c te d to c ru e l and unus ua l punis hme nt a s a re su lt of the sente ncing co urt’s adhe renc e to statutory sentenc ing guidelines, that the sentenc ing c ourt imp art ia lly imp os e d the lif e se nte nc e , an d that he wa s den ie d his right to a fa ir he ari ng . T he se c la ims , e ve n if tr ue , w ou ld n ot e nti tle the Pe tit ion e r t o h a be a s c or pu s reli ef. S uch cla ims , at mo st, wo uld rende r the judgment voi dable, not void. See L uttrell v. State, 644 S.W .2d 408, 409 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982).
The Petitioner’s law ful sentenc e has not e x pired a nd the sentenc ing c ourt had jurisdiction and authority to enter the judgme nt ag ainst him. For these re asons, the habe as cor pus court’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s r equest for relief was prope r.
CO NC LU SION Th e Pe tit ion e r h a s n ot d e mon str ate d that his se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d o r t hat hi s c onvic tio n is void. Accor dingly , the judg ment of the ha beas c orpus cour

t summarily

dism i s s i n g the petition for
a writ of habea s corpus is af firmed.

______________________________

DAVID H. WEL L ES, J UDGE