### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON

YA SIN H AWKIN S v. JOE EA STER LING, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forHardeman County No. 07-02-0267 Jose ph H . Walker, Judge

No. W2007-02588-C CA-R 3-HC - Filed June 19, 2008

The pe titioner, Yasin Haw kins, appea ls from the trial cour t’s denial of his pe tition for habea s corpus
re lie f. Th e State ha s f

ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ngthat th is C ourt a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt purs ua

nt to Ru le 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petition is defe ctive beca use it does not include a copy of the judg ment which is the basis for the petitioner’s be ing r estraine d, and it fails to prese nt a cla im which is cog nizable in a habea s corpus proc eeding . Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the tria l court’s dis mis sa l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ff

ir me d Pur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f C our t o f C r im ina l A ppe als

A LA N E. G LE NN , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS a ndJ. C. M C L IN , JJ., joined.

Yasin Ha wkins, Whiteville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Repo rt er ; and Clarenc e E. Lutz, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
The pe titioner, Yasin Hawkins, pled guilty in 1996 to second de g ree murder a nd in 2007 he filed a pe tition for habea s corpus relief , the basis beinghis claims that trial counsel had be en ineffe ctive. The trial court dismissed the petition beca use it did not inc lude a copy of the judg ment wh ic h is the ba sis fo r t

he pe tit ion e r’s bei ng re str a ine d. Th e pe tit ion e r a pp e a le d a nd the State

re sp on de d b y fi lin g a mot ion re qu e sti ng that the jud g me nt of the tr ia l c ourt be a ff ir me d, purs ua

nt t o Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. W e will revie w that motion.

Whether the petitioner is e ntitled to habea s corpus relief is a question of law. Summers v. State, 212 S.W .3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007); Har t v. State, 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000) . As such,

our r e vie w i s de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss give n to the trial co u rt’s finding s and conclusions. I d.-2-

I t is we ll- e sta

bli sh e d in Te nn e sse e that th e re me dy pr ov ide d b y

a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s is limit ed in scope and may only be invoked whe re the judgme nt is void or the petition er’ s term of imprisonment ha s expired. Fa ulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007); State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W .3d 624, 629 (Tenn. 2000 ); S t at e v . Dave nport, 980 S.W .2d 407, 409 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). The judg ment of a c ourt of g ener al jurisdiction is conclusive and presumed to be valid, and such a judg ment can only be impeac hed if the r ecor d aff irmati v el y

shows that the re nderingcourt was without persona l or subject matter jurisdiction. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 162 (Tenn. 1993). A void, as oppose d to a voidable, judg ment is “one that is fa cially invalid beca use the c ourt did not have the statutory authority to rende r such judgme nt.” Summers, 212 S.W .3d at 256 (c iting Dy kes v. Compton, 978 S.W .2d 528, 5 2 9 (T en n. 1998)). A pe titioner bear s the burden of establishing a

void judgment or

illega l confineme nt by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidence. Wy att v. Stat e , 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 2 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 0 )

. F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e n “ a h a

b e a s c o r p u s p e t i t ion fa ils to

e sta bli shtha t a jud g me nt i s v oid , a

tr ia l c ourt may dis mis s the pe tit ion wi tho ut a he ari ng .” Sum me rs , 212 S.W .3d at 260 (c iting Hog an v. Mills, 168 S.W .3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005) ).

We ag ree with the t rial cour t and the State on appe al that the petition was subjec t to summ ary dis mis sa l be c a

us e it d id n ot i nc lud e a

c op y of th e ju dg me nt p ur su ant t o w hic h th e pe tit ion e r i s restra ined. See Summers, 212 S.W .2d at 255-56. Additionally , we note that the claim of inef fec tive assistance of counse l cannot be r aised in a ha beas c orpus proc eeding , as the pe titioner has done.

Whe n an o pinion would have no pre cede ntial value, the Court of Criminal Appe als may

a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l court

by me mor and

um o pin ion

wh e n th e jud g me nt i s
re nd e re d o r t

he a c tio n ta

ke n in a pr oc e e din g wi tho ut a jur y and su c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a deter mination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the finding of the trial judg e. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. We c onclude that this c ase satisfies the criter ia of R u l e 20. Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d th a t th e State ’s mot ion is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t he tr ia l c ourt

is aff irmed in ac corda

nce w ith Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als.

___________________________________ ALAN E. G LENN, JUD GE