### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 12, 200 5 WILSON H. TU CKE R v. STEP HEN DO TSON , WA RD EN
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty

No. 9764 Jon Ke rry Blackwood , Judge

No. W2004-02969-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Augu st 24, 2005

Th e pe tit ion e r, Wils on H. Tu c ke r, fi le d a pe tit ionfo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s in the Ha

rd e ma n Co un ty Circuit Court. The trial court summarily dismiss ed the pe tition, and the petitioner timely appea led. Up on re vie w o f the re c or d a ndthe pa rt ie s’ brie fs , we a ff

ir m the jud g me nt of

the ha be a s c or pu s c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of t he court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined. Wil son H. Tucke r, Pro se.
Paul G

. Sum me rs , Attorne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r, a nd Ra c he l E. Willi s, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound The re cord r efle cts that in 1988, the petit ioner pled g uilty to four counts of grand larc eny , and the trial court sentence d him to consecutive sente nces of three y ear s on eac h count. The tria l court also order ed that the petitioner serve the se ntence s consec utively to prior sentenc es in Fr anklin and Grundy Counties. The petitioner did not file a petition f or post-conviction relief

. Howeve r, in 2004, he filed a petition for writ of habea s corpus, alleg ing that his g uilty pleas we re involuntarily enter ed beca use the trial co u rt fa i l ed to i nform him at the g uiltyplea he aring about his rig ht ag ainst selfinc ri min a tio n a s r e qu ir e d b y Rul e 11 (c)(3 ), Te nn . R. Cr im. P., a ndfaile d to inf orm hi m th a t hi s convictions could be used to e nhance any sentenc es he rec eived f or future convictions as provide d in State v. Macke y , 553 S.W .2d 337, 341 (Tenn. 1977) . The ha beas c orpus court summarily denied the petition for writ of habea s corpus, a nd the petitioner a ppeale d.W e a lso n o te th a t “[ t]o the e x te n t [a ] p e tit io n e r’s c la im is b a se d up o n the re q u ire m e n ts fo r th e tak ing o f gu ilt y 1 p le a s im p o se d b y M a c k e y a n d R u le 1 1 , T e n n . R . C rim . P ., b u t n o t r e la te d to c o n stitutio n a l r igh ts, it is n o t c o g n iz a b le in a s u i t for po s t

- c on v i c t i on r e l i e f

. ” M a t t h e w M e l t on J a c k s on v . St a t e , No. M 20 04

- 01 34 2- CCA- R3- PC, 20 05 T e n n . Cr i m. A p p . LE X IS 4 8 1 , at * 3 1 (N ashvi l l e, M ay 1 8 , 20 0 5 ), ap p l i cat i o n fo r perm . t o ap p eal f i l ed , (June 3, 2 0 0 5 ).

-2- II. Ana lys is
Th e pu rp os e of

a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionis t o c on te st voi d a ndno t me re ly vo ida ble judgme nts. Arche r v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 163 (Tenn. 1993) (c iting State ex rel. Ne wsom v. Hende rson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968))

. Habe as corpus r elief is available only when it a pp e ars on the fa c e of

the jud g me nt o r the re c or d th a t th e tria l cou rt was wi tho ut j urisd ic tio n to convict or se ntence the def endant or that his sentence has expired. Arc her, 851 S.W.2d at 164. The burden is on the pe ti t i o n er t o es t ablish that the judg ment is void or that the sentenc e has e x pired. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 214 Te nn. 500, 504, 381 S

. W

. 2d 290, 291-92 (1964) . A trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habea s corpus without the appointment of c ounsel and wi t h o u t an evidentiary

hearing if

there is nothing on the fa ce of the judg ment to indicate that the convictions addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. S t at e, 891 S .W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). As pointed out in the State’s brief, in State v. Tansil, 72 S.W .3d 665, 667 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001), a panel of this court stated,

I n State v. Nea l, 810 S.W .2d 131, 134 (Tenn. 1991) , the [Tennessee Supreme Court] stated that a failure to advise a defe ndant full y of the rig hts waived by

a g uiltyplea “ mere ly

rende rs the re l at ed judg ment voidable, not void.” In Arc her v . State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 163-64 (T e nn . 199 3) , the c ou rt he ld that a c on vic tio n r e su lti ng fr om a g uil ty plea e ntered wi thout a knowing and voluntary waiver of the rig ht ag ainst self-incrimination was not open to attack through a habeas corpus pr ocee ding be cause the lack of a proper waiver

only rende red the conviction voidabl e, n o t void. I t noted that a post-convic tion proce eding is the proper

avenue for r elief. I d. There fore , the petitioner’s c laim would at best render his convic tions and sentence s voidable and not vo id. Mo re ov e r, the pe tition e r p le d g uil ty in 1 98 8, a ndthepe tit ionin this c a se wa s n ot f ile d u nti l 20 04 . T hu s, e ve n if

we we re to c on sid e r the pe tit ion a s a pe tit ion fo r po st- c on vic tio n re lie f, it w ou ld be bar red by the statute of limitations. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 102 (1986). 1-3- III. Conclusi on Upon re view of the rec ord and the parties’ briefs, we af fi rm t he judg ment of the ha beas corpus c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE