### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 14, 200 9

MA RV IN A NTH ONYMA TTHEWS v. HE NR Y S TEWA RD , WA RD EN (STA TE OF TEN NES SEE)

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 6279 Joseph H. Walk er, Judge

No. W2008-02595-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Jul y 15, 2009

Th e pe tit ion e r, Marv in An tho ny Matth e ws , a pp e a ls the low e r c ourt ’s de nia l of his pe tit ion

fo r wri t of habe as cor

pus. The state ha s filed a motion reque sting that this court a ffirm t h e lower court’s deni al o f re l i ef pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We g rant the state ’s mot ion and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he low e r c ourt

. 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 the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.
Marvin Anthony

Matthews, pro se , Henning , Tenne ssee.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Da

vid H. F ind le y , A ssi st a

nt A tt o r n e y G e ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

The instant ca se re prese nts a longhistory of l itigation. On De cembe r 13, 1988, a jury found the petitioner guilty

of g rand la

rce ny

. Se e Ma rv in A nth on yMa tth e ws v . S

tate , N o. 1 6 , 1 9 9 0 WL 2862 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 17, 1990), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. May 14, 1990). The jury further found the pe titioner to be an ha bitu al cr i m i nal offe nder unde r the provisions of the habitu a l c r im in a l a c t ( n o w r e p e a le d ) , an d , a s a r e s u lt , th e p e ti ti o n e r

w a s s e n te n c e d

to life imprisonment. Id . The pe titioner’s conviction and sentenc e were affirme d on direc t appea l. See id. I n1 9 9 1 , t h e p et i t i o n er

fi l eda h ab ea s p et i t i o nar gu i n g inte r a lia that his verdic t and sente nce w ere not enter ed in compliance with Tenne ssee statute and that the Mittim us Writ of Confinement was void. See M

arvin Anthony Matthews v. Charles C. Noles, W arden , No. 02 C01-9206-CC-00140, 1993 WL 46546 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, F eb. 24, 1993), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. June 1, 1993). The lower c ourt found that the Mittimus W rit of Confinement wa s valid on its face , and that-2-

the petitioner was proper ly adjudg ed g uilty and sente nced. Id

. This court affirmed the decision of the l ower court. Id

. Th is c ourt a lso no te d th a t “ [t]ec hn ic a l vi olatio ns re late d to the jud g me nt f or ms and committal documents, eve n if they exis ted, would not rende r the pe titioner’s confine ment illega l
as long as a valid conviction and resultant leg al sentenc e we re imposed.” Id

. a t * 2

. S u b s e qu e n t l y, the petitioner filed nume rous petitions for post-convic tion relief. In an opinion filed on F ebrua ry 24, 1993, this court reve rsed e ight of the thirteen pr ior felony

convictions used by the s tate to prove the petitioner’s ha

bitual criminal status. Se e Ma rv in A . M att he ws v . S tate , No. 02C01-9204-CR-00091, 1993 WL 46525 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, F eb. 24, 1 9 9 3 ). However, in a differ ent opinion, this court noted that the re qui s i te number of qualifying c onvictions remained to satisfy the petition er ’s classification as an habitual c riminal. Se e Ma rv in M att he ws v . S

tate , No. W19 99 -0 08 33 -C CA -R 3- PC, 2 00 1 WL 39 48 68 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. , at Jac ks on , Apr il 1 7, 20 01 ). Th is court a lso held that the petitioner’s pe tition was barre d by the statute of limitations. Id . There afte r, the petitioner unsucc essfully soug ht further

post-conviction re lief. See, e .g., Ma r vi n Anthony Ma tth e ws v. Sta te , No. W2000-01893-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 W L1482780 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jac ks on , F e b. 8, 20 02 ) ( po st- c on vic tio n p e tit ion ba rr e d by statut e of

lim itatio ns ); Marvin Anthony Ma tth e ws v . S

tate , No. W2003-02980-CCA-R3-PC, 2004 W L1159585 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jac ks on , M ay

21 , 20 04 ) (p os t- c on vic tio n pe tit ion ba rr e d by statut e of lim itatio ns ); Marvin Anthony Ma tth e ws v . S

tate , No. W2007-00295-CCA-R3-PC, 2007 W L4146262 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, N ov. 20, 2007) (post-c onviction petition barred by statute of limitations).

Th e pe tit ion e r a lso re pe a te dly bu t un su c c e ssf

ull y c ha lle ng e d h is c on vic tio n a nd se nte nc e via petitions for writ of ha beas c orpus. Se e, e .g ., Mar vin A. Ma tth e ws v . S tate , No. 02-C-01-9206- CC-00141, 1993 W L84558 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 24, 1993) ( noting that ha bit ua l c ri min a l la

ws we re c on sti tut ion a l and de nying ha be a s c or pu s re lie f fo r fa ilure to s tate cog nizable claim). I n one habea s petition, the petitioner alleg ed that his judg ment of convic tion for g rand la rce ny was void bec ause it wa s not entere d on a uniform judg ment document in violation of statute. See M

arvin Anthony Matthews v. Dav id Mills, W arden , N o. W20 04 -0 22 09 -C CA -R 3- HC , 2005 WL 578821 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 2005), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. O ct. 24, 2005). The lowe r cour

t summarily

dismiss ed the pe tition and thi s court a ffirme d the dismissal by memorandum opinion. Id

. a t * 2

. I nd o in g s o , th is c o u rt s p e c if ic a ll y n o te d th a t “ th e f

a il u r e to u ti li ze the uniform judg ment document . . . would mer ely rende r a conviction voidable, not void.” Id

. In 2007, the petitioner a g ain collater ally attacke d his conviction and sentenc e via petition for wr it of habea s corpus. Ma rv in A nth on yMa tth e ws v . S

tate , N o

. W2 0 0 7

- 0 0 9 3 6

- CC A

- R3

- H C, 2 0 0 7 WL 4146253 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, N ov. 20, 2007). The pe titioner alleg ed that the indictment
un de rl yinghis g ra

nd larc e ny con vi ction a

nd ha bit ua l c ri min a l st a tus wa s in va lid be c a us e c e rt a in convictions had be en set a side by the cour t of cri m i n al ap p ea l s. Id . T he low e r c ourt summa ri ly dismiss ed the petition and thi s court affirmed the dismiss al by memorandum opinion. Id . I n doing
so , th is c ourt

c on c lud e d th a t th e ind ic tme nt at is su e proper ly ve ste d th e c on vic tin g c ourt wi th jurisdiction and the petitioner’s ha bitual criminal status had been previously deter mined to be valid. Id

. On May

30, 2008, the petiti o n er again soug ht habea s corpus re lief, conte nding that the judgme nt for the De cembe r 13, 1988 larc eny conviction was not c ontained in his instit utional file,-3-

only the M ittim us Writ Of Confineme nt, which was void. Se e Ma rv in A nth on yMa tth e ws v . S

tate , No. W2008-01495-CCA-R3-HC, 2008 WL 4756676 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oc t. 28, 2008). The lowe r cour

t su m m ar i l y d i s missed the petition and this court aff irmed the dismissal by memorandum opinion. Id . at *3. I n doing so, this cour t noted that we ha d “pre viously and repe atedly

held that t h e Mittimus W rit of Confinement and ‘ court’s minute e ntry ’ showing the petitioner wa s convicted of g rand la rce ny and sente nced a s an habitual offe nder to life imprisonment constitutes a valid judg ment of convic tion.” Id

. We f urther noted that “[t] echnic al violations related to the judgme nt f

orms and committal doc uments, even if they exis ted, would n o t re n d er the petitioner’s c onfinement illeg al as long as a va lid conviction and re sultant leg al sentenc e we re imposed.” Id . T his c ourt the n up he ld the low e r c ourt ’s summa ry dis mis sa l of

the pe tit ion

be c a us e the petitioner fa iled to prove that his judg ment was fa cially void or t hat hi s eff

ective sentence had expired. Id

. On Novembe r 5, 2008, the pe titioner filed the instant ha beas c orpus petition, contending that his j ai l cr ed i t s had bee n miscalculate d. On Novembe r 6, 2008, the lowe r cour t dismi ssed the petition, finding that the pe titioner’s claim wa s not cog nizable in a habea s proce eding . The petitioner has a

ppeale d.

Article I , section 15 of the Tenne ssee Constit ution guara ntees the rig ht to seek habea s corpus relief and Te nnessee C o d e Annotate d sections 29-21-101 et seq . codify the applica

ble proc edure s for se eking a wr it. However , the g rounds upon which a writ of habe as cor pus may be issued ar e ver

y narr ow. Tay lor

v . S tate , 9 95 S.W. 2d

78 , 8 3 ( Te nn . 1 99 9) . Awr it o f h a be a s c or pu s is a va ila

ble on ly when it appe ars on the f ace of the judg ment or the re cord of the procee d i n gs u p o n whi ch the judgme nt was re ndere d that a court was without jurisdiction to c onvict or sentenc e the de fenda nt or that the def

endant is still i mprisoned despite the e x piration of his sentenc e. Ar c he r v . S tate , 851 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v . S tate , 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). The purpose of a habea s corpus petition is to c ontest void and not merely voidable judg ments. Archer , 851 S.W .2d at 163. A void judg ment is a fac ially invalid judgment, c lear ly showin g t hat a c ourt did not have statutory authority to rende r such judg ment; where as, a voida ble judg ment is f

acia lly valid, requiring proof be y ond the fa ce of the record or judgme nt to establish its invalidity

. See Taylor , 995 S.W .2d at 83. The burden is on the petitioner to e stablish, by a preponde ranc e of the evid en ce , “t h at t he sentenc e is void or that the confine ment is ill eg al.” W y att v . S tate , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

. Moreove r, it is permissible fo r a co u rt to summarily dismiss a petition for ha beas c orpus re lief, without the appointment of counsel a nd without a n evidentiar

y hear ing, if

the petitioner doe s not state a c og nizable claim. Se e Hi c k ma n v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004)

.
I n the instant case , the petitioner e ssentially complains that he did not r ece ive jail cre dit for time served. A s proof of his c laim, the petitioner has include d a Tomi s Report from the Tenne ssee De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n ( TD OC ). Th e To mis Re po rt ind ic a te s th a t th e pe tit ion e r w a s se rv ingtim e in TDOC and esc aped on Aug ust 9, 1987. He wa s later r eturne d to the cu s t o d y o f TDOC on September 14, 1989. The limit ed docume ntary evidenc e supplied by

the petitioner indicates that on J uly 12, 1988, he wa s arr ested for the offe nse of g ran d l ar ce n y and wa s therea fter c onvicted on Dec ember

13, 1988. The Mittimus W rit of Co n f in ement conta ins a hand-written notation, indicating-4-

that the petit ioner was g iven pretrial jail cre dit from J uly 13, 1988 to J uly 23, 1989. The pe titioner appea rs to argue that he should have re ceive d jail cre dit for the tim e b et we en J u l y 23, 1989 and Se pte mbe r 1 4, 19 89 wh e n h e wa s r e tur ne d to TD OC

. Up on re vie w, we fi rs t no te that the pe tit ion e r’ s wr it of c on fi ne me nt is no t th e ju dgment

. Rath er , as pre viously

noted by this court, the lower

court’s minutes setting forth the jury verdic t constitute the judg ment. Se e Ma rv in A nth on yMa tth e ws , N o

. 0 2 C0 1

- 9206-CC-0 0 1 4 0 , 1 9 9 3 WL 46 54 6 at *2 . N on e the le ss, the wr it of c on fi ne me nt do c ume nt c le arl y sh ow s th a t he re c e ive d c re dit for the time se rved in jail ar ising from his conviction for g rand la rce ny . There fore , to the extent that the petitioner wa s denied a portion of his jail credit by mistake of ca lculation or by oversig ht, the pro p e r a venue f or re lief re g ardingthe application of jail credit is throug h the Uniform Administrative Procedur es Ac t. See Te nn . Code Ann. §§ 4- 5- 10 1 to -3 25 ; see also Carroll v. Raney , 868 S.W .2d 72 1, 72 3 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Brigham v. Lack, 755 S.W .2d 469, 471 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988)

.
We al s o re i t er ate that it is the petitioner’s bur den to establish, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that the j udg ment is void and the confine ment illega l. Se e W y att , 24 S.W .3d at 322. Her e, the petitioner e s s en t i al l y asks this court to look bey ond the fa ce of the judg ment or re cord a nd speculate as to whether he was denie d jail cre dit arising f rom his conviction for g rand la rce ny instead of ser ving time in jail a s a result of circ umstances unrelated to the g rand larc eny conviction, such a s his e sc a pe status . A s n ote d b y

our s up re me c ou

rt : A void judgme nt is one in which the judgme nt is fac ially invalid be cause the cour t lacke d ju ri s d i ct ion or authority to rende r the judg ment or bec ause the defe ndant’s sentenc e has e x pired. In contra st, a voidable 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 o r j ud gmen t to e sta bli shits invalidity . Thus, in all case s wher e a p etitioner must introduce proof bey ond the
rec ord to establish the invalidity of his conviction, then that conviction by definition is merely voidable, and a

Tenne ssee c ourt ca

nnot issue the wri t o f h ab eas c orpus un de r s uc h c ir c ums tanc e s.
Hickm an , 1 53 S.W. 3d

a t 24 (i nte rn a l c itatio ns , qu otatio ns , a lte ra tio ns , and e mph a sis omi tte d) . I t is clea r that the pe titioner has not demonstrated that his judgment is fa cially void or that his effe ctive sentenc e has e x pired. Ac cording ly , the cour t’s summary

dismiss al was pr oper.
When an o p in io n w o u ld h a v e n o p r e c e d e n ti a l v a lu e , th e Co u rt o f Cr im in a l A p p e a ls may
a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he low e r c ourt

by me moran du m op in ion w he 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 judgment or

a c tio n is no t a de te rm inatio n o f guil t, a

nd the e vid e nc e do e s no t pr e po nd e ra te a g a ins t the fi nd ingof

the low e r c ourt

. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. W e conc lude t h at t h i s ca se satisfies the c riteria of Rule 20. Ac c or din g ly , it

is ord 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 low e r 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.-5- ___________________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE