T he r ecor d re f l ect s t hat as a r es ul t of an over s i gh t i n t he t r i al cour t cl er k' s off i ce, t he M ay 200 2 pet i t i on was 1
f i l ed but never ass i gned t o t he t ri al judge o r fo rwarded t o t he Stat e A t t o rney G eneral ' s O f f i ce f o r f urt her act i o n. T he fil ing o f t h e a m e n d m e n t t o the p e tit io n a p p a re n tly trigg e re d the d e la ye d ru ling o n the p e tit io n

. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT KNOXVI LLE

JAME S C. WARD v. HO WARD CARLTON, WARDEN,

and th e STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for John son Coun ty No. 4012 Robert

E. Cup p, Jud ge

No. E2004-01397-CC A-R3- HC - F iled May 9, 2005

The pe titioner, J ames C. Ward, appea ls f rom the trial court' s order denying his pe tition for writ of habea s corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court aff irm the trial court's de nial of re lief pursua nt to Rul e 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petitioner ha s failed to establish his claim of a void judg ment. Acc ording ly , the stat e' s motion i s g rante d and the judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f theCo ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.

J ames Ward, Mountain City , Tenne ssee, pr o se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Michelle Chapman McI ntire, Assi stant Attorney Gene ral; Joe C. C rumley , J r., District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

The re cord r efle cts that t h e p etitioner wa s convicted in Nove mber 1991 pursuant to a plea ag ree ment for se cond deg ree murder and s entenc ed as a R ang e I I , multipl e off ender to thirtyy ear s in the custody

of the Te nnessee Depa

rtment of Correc tion. No direc t a ppeal was take n. On May 15, 2002, the petitioner soug ht habea s corpus re lief. I n his pro se petition, he claimed that his sentence was illeg al and void bec ause he had no prior c onvictions and was thus ine ligible f or sentenc ing a s a Rang e I I , multipl e off

ender . On J anuary

5, 2004, the petitioner a mended his petition by further claiming that the sentenc e wa s imposed in violation of his due proces s ri gh ts. Rely ing on the 1-2-

principles set forth in St ate v. Mahler, 735 S.W. 2d 226 (Tenn. 1987), the t rial court found that the petitioner' s sentence was pe rmissible and denied r elief.

I n T e n n e s s e e , “ [a ]n y

p e r s o n i m p r i s o n e d o r

r e s tr a i n e d o f

h i s l i b e r t y , u n d e r

a n y p r e te ns e wh a tso e ve r, e xce pt [tho se hel d u nd e r f e de ra l auth ority ], may

pr os e c ute a

writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint.” Church v. State, 987 S.W . 2d 855, 857 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); T.C.A.. § 29-21-101. A writ of habeas corpus may be g rante d only

when the pe tit ion e r h a s e sta

bli sh e d la c k o f j urisd ic tio n f or the or de r of c on fi ne me nt o r that he is o the rw ise entitled t o i m m ed i ate r elea se bec ause of the expiration of his sentence . See Ussery v. Avery , 222 Te n n

. 5 0
, 4 3 2 S. W. 2 d 6 5 6 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; St a te e x r e l. Wa d e v

. N o r v e ll
, 1 T e n n

. Crim

. A p p . 447, 443 S.W .2d 839 (1969).

I n the prese nt c ase, the petitioner has failed to e stablish his claim of an ill ega l s en tencing j u d g m e n t

. E v e n t h o u g h h e m a y n o th a v e o t h e r w i s e b e e n e l i g i b l e f o r s e n t e n c i n g a s a

R a n g e II, multipl e off

ender , the petitioner, o rig inally indicted for f

irst deg ree murder, c oncede s that he plea ded g uiltyto second de g ree murder and ag ree d to a sentenc e of thirty y ear s as a Rang e I I

offe nder unde r the terms of his ple a ag ree ment. Second deg ree murder is a Class A felony

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13 -2 10 . Pu rs ua nt t o Se c tio n 40 -3 5- 11 1( b) (1 ), the se nte nc ing rang e fo r a Cla ss Afe lonis “ no t le ss than f if te e n ( 15 ) n or

mor e than s ixty

(6 0) y e ars .” Th e pe tit ion e r’ s thi rty y e ar se nte nc e is thu s w ith in the applica

ble sentenc ing r ang e for

the conviction off

ense. Further, the sentence i s wi t h i n the

s t a t u t o r y r a n g e o f “ n o tl e s s t h a n t w e n t y

- f

i v e ( 2 5 ) n o r

m o r e t h a n f

o r t y ( 4 0 ) ye ar s ” f

o r a R a n g e II offe nder c ommitt ing a

Class A felony . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-112(b) . Our supre me court has reje cted sim i l ar s entenc ing c halleng es whe re the sentenc e imposed wa s, as in the ca se sub judice, within the s tatutory limit s established for the conviction off

ense, holding that a def

endant c an wa ive the ra ng e cl as s i fi ca t i o n as part of a ne g otiated g uiltyplea. Mahler, 735 S.W.2d at 228; Hicks v. State, 945 S.W .2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997)

. Upon due c o n sideration of the pleading s, the rec ord, and the applicable law, the c ourt
co n c lu d e s th a t th e p e ti ti o n e r h a s n o t e s ta b li s h e d th a t h e is e n ti tl e d to h ab e a s c o rp u s relief

. Acc ording ly , the state’s motion is gr anted. The judgme nt of the t rial court is affirmed in a ccor dance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE