### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

DA RR EN RAY CA SE v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wayne County No. 13428 Robert

L. Jones, Jud ge

No. M2004- 01727-CCA -R3-HC - F iled March 10, 2005

The Petitioner, Da

rren R ay Case, appe als from the dismissal of his petition for the wr it of habea s corpus. The S tate has filed a motion reque sting that the Court a ffirm the tria l court’s de nial of re lief pu rs ua nt to Rul e 20
, Rul e s of the Cou rt of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls. We f indthe Sta te ’s mot ion ha s me ri t. Acc ording ly , the motion is gra nted and the appea l is aff irmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J , joined.

Dar ren Ray Case, pro se , Clifton, Tennessee

.

Pa ul G . Su mm ers , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; El iza be th T . Ry a n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On J uly 15, 2003, the P etitioner pl ed guilty to one count of sale of a Schedule I

narc otic, two counts of vehic ular a ssault, and two counts of ag g rava ted assault. Petitioner rec eived an eig ht y ear sentenc e for

the sale of

a Schedule I narc otic conviction, a two y ear sentenc e for

eac h of the ve hicular assault convictions, and a three y ear

sentenc e for ea ch o f the ag g rava ted assault convic tions. The jud g me nt f

or m f or the sa le of

a Sc he du le I

na rc oti c sh ow s th a t it

wa s o rd e re d to ru n c on se c uti ve ly to the a g g ra va te d a ssa

ult c ou nts a nd a ny

pr ior c on vic tio ns

. Th e jud g me nt f or ms f or the ve hic ula

r a ssa ult

c on vic tio ns or de r tha t th e y are to r un con secutive ly

to the sa le c ou nt a nd the a g g ra va te d a ssa ult conviction, howeve r, the judg ment does n o t i ndicate w hether the vehicula

r assaults are to run

c on c ur re ntl y or c on se c uti ve ly to e a c h oth e r. Th e jud g me nt fo rm fo r on e of the agg rava ted assau lt-2-

convictions states that it is to run consecutively to the sale c ount and to the first count of ve hicular

a ssa ult

.
On Octobe r 1, 20 0 3
, t h e t ri al court entere d two amende d judgme nts that showed that the Pe tit ion e r p le d n olo c on te nd e re , in ste a d o f ple a din g g uil ty , to the sa le of a Sc he du le I na rc oti c a ndto the f i rs t count of ag g rava ted assault. The amende d judgme nt refle cts that the sale of a Schedule I

na rc oti c se nte nc e sh ou ld r

un c on se c uti ve ly

to the a g g ra va te d a ssa

ult se nte nc e s.
On April 23, 2004, the Petitioner filed, pro se, a petition f or writ of ha

beas c orpus re lief in the Way ne County

Circuit Court. He asserted that his c onviction is void be cause his plea ag ree ment was not honored by the entry of an amende d judgme nt on the s ale of a S chedule I narc otic count. On June 12, 2004, the trial court iss ued an or der dismissing the Petitioner’ s application for habea s corpus relief . The Petitioner filed his notice of appea l in the trial court on Jul y 3, 2004.

The g rounds upon which a writ of habe as cor

pus may be issued ar e very

narr ow. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only when it appe ars fr om the fa c e of

the jud g me nt o r r e c or d th a t e ith e r the c on vic tin g c ou rt wa s w ith out ju ri sd ic tio n to convict or se ntence the petitioner, o r t he petitioner’ s sentence has expired. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v. S tate , 8 33 S.W. 2d 60 , 6 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . I n o the r w or ds
, habea s corpus relief may only be soug ht w hen the judgme nt is void, not mere ly voidable. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

.
The Petitioner has f

ailed to set forth any

alleg ations that would indicated that the tria l court lacke d jurisdiction to convict or sentence him or t hat he is unlawf ully “re strained” for a

sentenc e that has expired. As t his court has rec og nized, Petitioner’s claim t hat hi s plea ag ree ment was not honore d in the judgme nt entere d or sentenc e imposed “pr esents at most a c laim of a mer ely voidable, and not void, judgment or

sentenc e.” Jeffr ey

Miller v. State of Tenne ssee, No. E 2000-01192-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 987154, *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., a t Knox ville, Aug

. 29, 2001) (citing Paul v. B arne tt v. St ate, No. E1999-01583- CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 782048 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvil le, J une 20, 2000);

see a lso Roger

T. J ohnson v. State, No. M2002-02902-CC A- R 3 -CO, 2004 WL 443971, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar ch 5, 2004), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. 2004)

.
The Petitioner has failed to e stablish by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that his conviction is void o r h is te r m o f imp r is o n me n t h a s e xp ir e d

. A c c o r d in g ly
, th e St a te ’ s mo ti o n is g r a n te d . The judgme nt of the t rial court is affirmed in a ccor dance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Ap pe a ls.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE