### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 9, 200 7
JEFF ERYYA TES v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 06-02-0137 Jose ph H . Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2006-00969-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 29, 2007

The pe titioner, J eff

ery Yates, a ppeals the Harde man County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for habea s corpus re lief fr om h i s convictions for e specia lly ag g ravated kidnapping , ag g ravated kidnap p i n g, and attempted a g g ravated robbe ry . He c ontends that his sentence s are illega l and, the re fo re , th a t his ju dgme nts of c on vic tio n a

re vo id. Up on

re vie w o f t

he re c or d a

nd the pa rt ie s’ briefs, w e af

firm the trial c ourt’s denia l of the petition for ha beas c orpus re lief.

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 uitCo ur t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion o f t he cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES a nd J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

J eff ery Yates, Pro se

. Michae l E. Moore, Ac ting Attorne y Gene ral an d Reporter ; David H. F indley Assistant Attorney Gene ral; D. Micha el Dunava nt, D istrict A ttorney

Gene ral; and James Pentecost, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that on Ap ri l 23 , 1 99 3, the pe tit ion e r w a s c on vic te d b y a She lby County Criminal Court jury

of espe cially

ag g ravated kidnapping , ag g ravated kidnappi n g , and attempted ag g ravated robbe ry

and re ceive d an ef

fect i v e eightee n-y ear

sentenc e. On June 14, 1994, the petitioner pled g uilty

in the Shelby County Criminal Court to five c ounts of ag g ravated assault and two counts of possessing coca ine and r ece ived an e ffe ctive ten-y ear sentenc e. The trial c ourt order ed that the ten-y ear

sentenc e be se rved c oncurr ently with the eig hteen- y ear

sentenc e. On April 10, 20 06 , th e pet it io ner f

ile d a pe tit ion fo r a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s in the Ha rd e man Co un ty

Cir c uit Court, alleg ing that he was on bail for the five a g g ravated assaults and f or one c ount of possessing
co ca i n e when he committed the espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping , ag g ravated kidnapping , and-2-

attempted ag g ravated r o bbery and, ther efor e, that his eff ective e ighte en-y ear

sentenc e wa s illega l beca use he w as re quired to ser ve it consec utively

to th e ef fe ct i v e t en-y ear

sentenc e. The habea s corpus court conclude d that the petitioner ha d not demonstrated a rig ht to relief a

nd dismiss ed the petition without appointi ng counsel or c onducting a hearing

. On appeal, the petitioner c laims that the ha be a s c or pu s c ourt e rr e d b y de nying h is peti tio n, a rguin g that it is “ ir re futa ble ” that hi s sentenc es ar e illeg al and that the judg ments of conviction ar e void.

II. Ana lys is

Th e purp os e of

a hab eas c or

pu s p e tit ion

is t o c on te st v oid

a nd no 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 relief is available only

when it a pp e ars on the fa c e of th e ju dg me nt o r t he re c or d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt wa s w ith ou t juri sd 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 b u r d e n is o n th e p e ti ti o n e r to e s ta b li s h th a t th e ju d g me n t is v o id o r th a t th e s e n te n ce ha s expi red. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 214 Te nn. 500, 504, 381 S.W .2d 290 , 2 9 1-92 (1964) . A trial cour t may summarily

dismiss a petition for wr it of habea s corpus without the appointment of counse l and without an evidentiar

y hear ing if

there is nothing on the fa ce of the jud gm en t t o i n d icate that the convictions addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 6 1 9 (T enn. Crim. App. 1994).

Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d s e c tio n 40 -20 -11 1( b) pr ov ide s th a t if a de fe nd a nt c omm its a felony while on bail “a

nd the def endant is convic ted of both off enses, the trial judge . . . shall order that th e se nte nc e s be se rv e d c umu la tiv e ly .” Th e Te nn e sse e Rul e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure 32 (c )( 3) a lso provides that [w] hen a defe ndant is c onvicted of multipl e off enses f rom one trial or when the de fenda

nt has addit i o n al s entenc es not y et fully serve d as the re sult of convictions in the same or othe r cour t and the law require s consec utive senten ces, the sentenc e shall be c onsecutive wh e the r t he jud g me nt e xplic itl y

so or de rs or

no t. T his ru le shal l
a p p l y:

. . . (C) to a sente nce f

or a f el o n y committed while the def endant wa s rele ased on ba il and the def endant is convic ted of both off enses[.] Turning to the instant case , the petitioner attached te n judgme nt forms to his petition. Acc ording to the judgme nt forms, between November 1990 and J uly 1991, the petitioner c ommitt ed the five a g g ravated assaults and one count of possessing coca ine. The judg ment forms for the espec ially ag g rav at edk i dn ap p i n g, aggr av at edk i dn ap p i n g, an d at t em p t edaggr av at edro b b ery at i s sue sh owthat he c omm itt e d th os e of fe ns e s in De c e mbe r 19 91 bu t are sil e nt a s to wh e the r h e wa s o n b a il-3-

wh e n h e c omm itt e d th e of fe ns e s. Mo re ov e r, the pe tit ion e r ha s fa ile d to a tta c h a ny oth e r d oc ume nts to his petition which show that he wa s on bail for the pr ior six offe nses when he committed the latter three offe nses. As our supre me cour t rec ently explained,

I n th e c a s e o f

a n il le g a l s e n te n c e c la im b a s e d o n f a c ts n o t a p p a r e nt from the f

ace of the judg ment, an ade quate r ec o rd for summary revie w must include pertinent doc uments to s u p port those fa ctual
asser tions. When suc h documents from the rec ord of the unde rlying proce eding s are not attach ed to the habea s corpus pe tition, a trial court may

proper ly choose to d ismiss the petition without the appointment of counse l and without an evidentiar y hear ing.

C h ar l e s G

. S u m m e r s v
. S t a t e , 2 1 2 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 1 , N o

. M 2 0 0 4

- 0 2 8 0 6

- S C

- R 1 1

- H C , 2 0 0 7 T e n n

. LE X IS 15, at **25-26 (N ashville, J an. 23, 2007). B eca use the judg ment forms for the espe cially

ag g ravated kidnapping , ag g ravated kidnapping , and attempted a g g ravated robbe ry convicti o n s a

r e f a c ia ll y v alid, the habe as cor

pus court prope rly

denied the pe tition for habea s corpus re lief.

III. Conclusi on
Ba sed upon the re cord a

nd the par ties’ brief s, we a ffirm the judg ment of the habe as cor pus c ourt

.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGL E, J UDGE