### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 27, 200 5

TYR ONE D. CO NLE Y v. HOWA RD CA RLT ON
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County No. 4497 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2005-00049-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Novem ber 2, 2005

The pe titioner pled g uilty to se cond deg ree murder on N ovember 14, 1997. The trial c ourt sentenc ed the petitioner on the sa me day to twenty y ea rs t o b e serve d as a Rang e I , standard of fende r with a rele ase e ligibility

of thirty perc ent. On Jul y

27, 1999, the t rial court amende d the judg ment stating that the petitioner’s r elea se elig ibilit y would be one hundr ed per cent with cr edit g iv en for time served up to fifteen pe rce nt of his sentence . The pe titioner filed a pe t i t i o n for ha beas c orpus re lief on October 12, 2004. On November 15, 2004, the habe as court summarily dismiss ed the pe titioner’s pe tit ion . T he pe tit ion e r a pp e a le d th is d e c isi on . We a ff ir m th e de c isi on of

the ha be a s c ou rt

.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined and J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J . filed a se parate conc urring opinion.
Ty rone D . Conley , Pro Se, Mountain Cit y , Tenne ssee.

Paul G . Su mme rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; B ri a n C. John so n, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and Joe Crumley , District Attorney Gene ral; an d Michelle Chapman Mc I ntire, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

On November 14, 1997, the petitioner pled g uiltyto second de g ree murder in Washing ton County . The trial c ourt enter ed a judgme nt se ntencing the petitioner to twe nty y ear s in the Tennesse e De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n as Ra ng e I , sta nd ard of fe nd e r with re le a se e lig ibi lit y a ft e r s e rv ic e of thi rty perc ent. On Jul y

27, 1999, the tri al court entere d an ame nded judg ment altering the petitioner’s rele ase e ligibility

afte r ser vice of

one hundre d perc ent “wit h m ax i m um 15% cre dit for g ood and honor time prior to parole eligibility .” The petitioner neve r filed a petition for post-conviction re lief for e ither judg ment.-2-

On Octobe r 12, 2004, the pe titioner filed a pe tition for a writ of ha beas c orp u s in the Criminal Court for J ohnson County

. The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition on November 8, 20 04 . A lso on No ve mbe r 8, 20 04 , the t ri a l c ou rt e nte re d a n o rd e r s umm ari ly dis mis sin g thi s pe tit ion . O n D e c e mbe r 8 , 2 00 4, the pet iti on e r f ile d tw o mo tio ns , o ne a sking thetr ia l c ou rt to
rec onsider the dismissal and one asking for the trial court’ s rec usal. The tria l court did not file any order s in response to the pe titioner’s two motions. The petitioner later filed a notice of appe al on Dec ember

17, 2004.

On Fe bruary

25, 2005, the State fi l ed a motion for affirmance of the trial c ourt’s denia l of the ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionba se d o n Ru le 20 of the Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls R ule s. Th is court issued a n order

denying the State’s motion under Rule 20. We now re v i ew the trial court’s de nia l of the pe tit ionon the me ri ts.

AN AL YSI S

We initi ally

note that the petitioner’ s notice of a ppeal in the trial court wa s filed outside the time to file a notice of

appea l as of rig ht from the trial c ourt’s denia l of the pet i tion for habe as corpus. Unde r Rule 4 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Appellate Procedur e, a party who wishes to appe al fr om a tri a l cou rt ’s jud g me nt und e r Rule 3 of the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f A pp e llate Pr oc e du remus t f ile a notice of appea l w ithin thirty day s of the judgme nt f rom which they

are appea ling. In this case, the habea s court filed its orde r on November 8, 2004, but the petitioner did not file his notice of a ppeal until Decembe r 17, 2004. Howe ver, be cause this Court has alrea dy den i ed the State’s motion for
a ff ir ma nc e un de r R ule 20, w e no w turn to the qu e sti on of wh e the r the ha

be a s c ou rt

pr op e rl y dismiss ed the pe titioner’s habe as cor pus petition.

A writ of ha

beas c orpus is available only when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the
rec ord that the c onvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the de fendant or that the defe ndant is still imprisoned despite the expiration of his sentence . Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pott s v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). Howeve r, if afte r a re view of the ha beas pe titioner’s filings the trial court de termines that the pe titioner would not be entitled to r e lie f, the n th e pe tit ionma y be su mma

ri ly dis mis se d. Te nn . Co de An n. § 2 9- 21 -1 09 ; State e x re l. B yrdv. B oma

r, 38 1 S. W.2 d 2 80 (T e nn . 1 96 4) . F urthe r, a tria l c ou rt

ma y su mma ri ly dis mis s a petition for writ of habeas corpus without the appointm ent of a lawy er and without an evidentiary hearing if there is nothing on the fa ce of the judg ment to indicate that the c onvictions addressed there in are void. Passare lla v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) , superc eded by statute as stated in State v. Steven S. Newman, N o. 02C01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).
A petitioner ha s the burden of establi s h i ng by

a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e that the judgme nt he attac ks is void or that his term of imprisonment has expi red. St at e ex re l. Kuntz v. B oma r, 38 1 S. W.2 d 2 90 , 2 91 (T e nn . 196 4)

. I f the pe tit ion e r fails to es ta bli sh that hi s c on vic tio n is void or his term of imprisonment has ex pired, he is not entitled to immediate rele ase. Passa rella, 891 S.W .2d at 627-28.-3-

Th e pr oc e du ra l r e qu ire m e n t s f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f a r ema nd a tory

a ndmus t be sc ru pu lou sly followed. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 15, 19-20 (Te nn. 2004); Arc her, 851 S.W.2d at 165. The formal require ments for an application or petition f or writ of habea s corpus are found at Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107:
(a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, signed by either the party

for whose be nefit it is i ntended, or some person on the petitioner’s be half, a nd verifie d by a ff ida vit

. (b) The petition shall state: (1) That the person in whose behalf the writ is soug ht, is il l ega lly restrained of liberty , and the pe rson by

whom and plac e whe re r estraine d, mentioning the name of such per son, if known, and if unknow n, describ i n g the per son with as much pa rt ic ula ri ty a s p ra c tic able ; (2) The cause or pre tense of suc h restraint accor ding to t h e b est information of the applicant, a nd if it be by

virtue of any

leg al process, a copy there of shall be annexed,
or a satis fa c tory

re a so n g ive n f

or its abs e nc e ; (3) That the leg ality

of t h e restraint has not alre ady been a djudge d upon a prior proce eding of t he same char acte r, t o the best of t he applicant’s knowledge and belief ; and (4) That it is the first application for the writ, or, if a pre vious application has bee n made, a copy of the petition and proce eding s there sha ll be produce d, or satisfac tory
rea sons should be g iven for the failure to do so.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-107. “Ahabea s corpus court may properly choose to dismiss a petition for f ailing to c omply

with the statutory proce dural require ments

. . . .” Hickman, 153 S.W .3d at 21.
The pe titioner arg ues that he is entitled to relief pursuant to his habea s corpus pe tition be c aus e the tr ia l c ou rt

e nte re d a n a me nd e d ju dg me nt i nc re a sin g his re le a se e lig ibi lit y fr om thirty pe rc e nt t o o n e h u n d r e d p e r c e n t

. O n ap p e a l t h e p e t i t i o n e r ar g u e s t h a tt h e tr i a l c o u r tw a s i n e l i g i b le to h e ar h is h abe a s c or

pu s p e tit ionbe c aus e thetr ia l ju dg e wa s wi tho ut a uth ority to d ism iss his petition. The petitioner cites Te nnessee Code Annot ated section 17-1-117 a nd Tenne ssee Code An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 30 -1 03 (b ) t o s up port th is a rg ume nt. Ho we ve r, a s th e State po int s o ut, Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 17-1-117 does not exis t and, at prese nt, there is no section (b) of Ten n es s ee Code Annotated se ction 40-30-103. In addition, the case law cited by the petitioner does not s u pport his positi on. More importantly , the petitioner did not file a motion for the trial judge to rec use himself un t i l af t er t h e trial judge ha d filed the orde r dismissing the habe as cor pus petition. A petitioner should timelyobject to a judge ’s hearing of hi s case

. See Thompson v. S tate, 958 S.W .2d 156, 172 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

.
F or the se re a so ns , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

The petitioner’s next ar g ument is that the trial court err ed in e ntering an ame nded judg ment twenty months after the orig inal judgme nt was final. The S tate ar g ues that the pe titioner’s petition-4-

should be dismissed because it does not me et all the proce dural re quirements included in Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107. In the alternative, the State a rg ues that under

Rule 36 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proc edure , a trial court is a llowed to corre ct a c lerica l error at any time.

T h eSt ate ar g ues that the pe titioner has fa iled to meet the re quirements under Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107 be cause the petition was not verif ied by an af fidavit and that the petitioner “f

ailed to provide w hether

the leg ality of the re straint had alr eady been a djudge d upon a prior pr oceed in g o f th e sa me c ha ra c te r. ” We h a ve re vie we d th e re c or d a ndfi ndthat th e State is
c or re c t. T he pe tit ionis miss ing bo th an a ff ida vit ve ri fying thepe tit iona s w e ll a s a state me nt a s to whether the petitioner ha s filed a similar ac tion to review his imprisonment. Under Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107, these missing r equire ments are enoug h in themselves to support the dismiss al of the pe titioner’s petition.

F or the se re a so ns , th e pe tit ion e r’ s is su e is w ith ou t me ri t.

CO NC LU SION

For the fore g oing rea sons, w e aff irm the order

of the ha beas c ourt dismissi ng the petitioner’s petition for habe as cor

pus relief

.

___________________________________

J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE