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

JAME S GLE NN COLLI NS, JR. v . TOMMY MI LLS, W ARDEN (STA TE OF TEN NES SEE)

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 08-CR -9149 Lee M oore, Judge

_________________________ W2008-00798-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Dece m ber 3, 2008

_________________________ The pe titioner, J ames Gle nn Colli ns, J r., appe als the L a k e Co u nty Ci r c u it Court’s summary

dismiss al of his petition for habe as cor pus relief . The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this court a ffirm the tr ia l c ourt ’s de nia l of re lie f purs ua nt to Rul e 20 , Rul e s of the Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls b e c a us e the petition f

ai l s t o s t ate a

cog nizable claim for r elief. U pon our re view of the petition and the applicable authorities, we g rant the State’ s motion and affirm the judg ment of the lowe r cour t.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

.
C AM I LLE R. McM UL L EN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I A MS and A LA N E. G L EN N , JJ ., joined.

J ames Gle nn Colli ns, J r., Pro Se.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; and Rache l E. W i l l i s , As sistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION

I n J uly 1986, the petitioner, James Glenn Collins, J r., pled guilty in Knox County

Criminal Court to four counts of a

rmed robbe ry , two counts of gra nd larc eny , one count of petit larc eny , one count of c oncea ling stolen pro p er t y , one count of ag g ravated assault, and one count of e scape as char g ed in nine separ ate indictments. He a g ree d upon an ef fec tive sentenc e of f

orty -five year s in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection as a Rang e I , standard offende r. He did not file a dire ct appe al

or see k post-conviction re lief.

On Marc h 28, 2008, the petitioner filed a pro se pe titi o n fo r h ab eas corpus re lief in L ake County Circuit Court. His central c laim was that his 1986 plea agre em en t wa s “illeg al and void

. . . due to the cumulative aff ect [ sic] of the Consti tutional error s aff ectingthe substantial rig hts of the def endant in that he ha s clea rly been de nied fundamental due pr ocess of law.” T he petitioner challeng ed ea ch of his c onvictions for a c ombined total of over one -hundre d forty g rounds for r elief,-2-

wi th v ary ingsu b- pa rt s, wh ic h c an b e c a te g or ize d a s f oll ow s: (1 ) ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l; (2 ) d efic iencies in the a ffidavits of c omplaint and arr est war rants; (3) suf

ficienc y of the e vidence ; (4 ) v a lid ity

of g uil ty ple a ; (5 ) the statut e s un de r whic h p e tit ion e r w a s c ha rg e d w e re ina

pp lic a ble to the offe nse he a ctually

committed; (6) alleg ations of prosecutorial mi sconduct, and (7) c halleng es to the sentenc e imposed. Afte r ca ref ully revie wing the alleg ations within the petition, the trial court denied ha beas c orpus re li ef w ith an extensive eig ht-pag e wr itten order a naly zing the petition, the exhibi ts, and the applica

ble law. The petitioner then filed this timely appea l.

I n this appeal, the petitioner filed a one-hundr ed-twe nty -two pag e handwritten brief arguing larg ely the same a fore mentioned g rounds. He a dditionally claims that the habe as co u rt err ed by de nying hi m rel ief

on his ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion

wi tho ut t he a pp oin tme nt o f c ouns e l. T he State argues t he habeas court proper ly dismiss ed the pe tition because none of the pe titioner’s claims, eve n if true, would r ender

the petitioner’s c onvictions void. W e ag ree

. A prisoner

is gua rante ed the rig ht to habeas c orpus re lief under Article I , section 15 of the Tenne ssee Constitution. S ee a lso T. C. A. § 29-21-101, et seq. Howe ver, the g rounds upon which

a wr it of habea s corpus may be issued ar e ver

y narr ow. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). “H abea s corpus re lief is available in Tennesse e only when ‘ it appear s upon the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the pr ocee dings upon w hich the judg ment is render ed’ that a convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence a def

endant, or th at a defenda

nt’s sentenc e of imprisonment or other r estraint has e x pired.” Arc her v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)

. “[T] he purpose of a ha

beas c orpus petition is to contest void, not m ere ly voidable, judgments.” I d. at 163. A void judgme nt “ is one in w hich the judgme nt is facially invalid beca

use 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 ex p i red.” Taylor, 995 S.W .2d at 83. “In contra st, a v o i d ab l e judg ment is facia lly valid and re quires the int ro du c tio n o f p ro of

be y on d th e fa c e of the re c or d or jud g me nt to es ta bli sh its inv a lid ity . T hu s, in

a ll c a se s w he re a

pe tit ion e r m

us t in tr od uc e pr oo f b e yon d th e re c or d to e sta bli sh the inv a lid ity

of his conviction, then that conviction by definition is merely

voidable, and a

Tenne ssee c ourt ca

nnot issue the writ of ha

beas c orpus under

such circ umstances.” Hickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16, 24 (Tenn. 2004)(inter

nal citat i o n an d quotation omitt ed); see also Summers v. State, 212 S.W .3d 251, 256 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( c i t a t i o no m i t t e d )

. M o r e o v e r , i t i s t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s b u r d e nt o d e m o n s t r a t e , b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, that the j udg ment is void or t hat the conf inement illeg al. Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

.
I f t he ha be a s c or pu s c ourt de te rm ine s f

ro m th e pe tit ion e r’ s f

ili ng s th a t no c og niza

ble c la im has bee n stated and that he i s n o t en titled to relief, the pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus may be summarily

dismiss ed. See H ickman v. State, 153 S .W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004). F urther, the habea s corpus c ourt may

summarily

dismiss the petition w ithout the appointment of a la wy er a nd without

an evidentiar

y hear ing if there is nothingon the fa ce of the judg ment to indicate that the c onvictions

are vo id. Pa ssa

re lla v. State , 891 S.W. 2d 61 9, 62 7 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ), su pe rc e de d b y

statut e
a s st a te d in State v. Steven S. Newman, N o. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 1044 9 2 , at *2 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).-3-

Upon re view of the rec ord and applicable law, this court conclude s that the petitioner is not entitled to habea s corpus re lief and that t h e h ab ea s court’s summar y dismiss al of the pe tition was proper . Th e p et i t i oner’ s numerous cla ims are mer ely voidable, not void. Nothing in the r ecor d demonstrates that the trial court lac ked jurisdiction to acc ept the petiti oner’ s g uilty pleas, impose the sentenc es, or that the pe titioner’s sent en ce s have e x pired. Ac cording ly , the petitioner ha s not
asser ted a f acia lly cog nizable claim that is appropriate for ha beas corpus relief

. Be cause there was
no fa c ia lly

c og niza ble c la im, the pe tit ion e r w a s a lso no t ent itl e d to a pp oin tme nt o f c ouns e l f

or his hear ing in the ha

beas c ourt. Billy

J ames Matthew s v. Turner , No. W2004-015 4 7

- CC A

- R3

- H C, 2005 WL 957112, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, A pr. 26, 2005) ( citations omitt ed).
On November 6, 2008, the petit ioner filed a mot ion with this court to amend his petition for h ab ea s co rp u s re l i ef

. T h e pe t i t i o n er n o w at t em p t s t o am en d h i s p et i t i o n b as ed o nh i s “i l l ega l ra n ge
se nte nc ing .” I n th is m oti on , th e pe tit ion e r a pp arentl y c omp la ins be c a

us e he wa s se nte nc e d a s a Rang e I , standard of

fende r, rather than be ing se ntence d as a Rang e I I , multipl e off ender, his true status at the time of the guilty plea. “ [A] pl ea -b ar gai n ed s entence is leg al as longas it does not exceed the ma x imum punis hment authorized for the plea offe nse.” See Hoover v. State, 215 S.W .3d 776, 7 8 0 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 7 )

. M o r e o v e r , “ o f f e n d e r c la s s if ic a ti o nan d

r e le a s e e li g ib il it

y ar e n onjurisdictional and may

be used as barg aining tools by the State and the de fense in plea neg otiations.” I d. Nothin g in

th is r e c o r d

in d ic a te s th e p e ti ti o n e r ’ s s e n te n c e e xc e e d e d th e maxim

u m p u n is h me nt authorized by

statute. Acc ording ly , the petitioner’s motion is denied.
When an opinion would have no pr ece dent i al v alue, the Court of Criminal Appeals may

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

by me mor and

um o pin ion whe 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 men t or 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 Te nn. Ct. C ri m

. App. R . 20. We conclude that this case satisfies the c riteria of Rule 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

a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th R

ule 20 , Ru le s o f t

he Cou rt of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

_____________________________ CAMI L L E R. McMUL L EN, JUDGE