### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 13, 200 5

MA RV IN R AIN ER v. D AV ID G. MILLS , WA RD EN

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

No. 5914 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2004-02676-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Janu ary 20, 2006

Petitioner, Marvin Rainer , appea ls from the trial court’s dismiss al of his pe tition for writ of habe as corpus. I n Marc h 2001, Petitioner was convicted i n Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of misdemeanor a ssault, two felony counts of forg ery over five hundre d dollars, one c ount of theft over
a tho us a nddo lla

rs , a nd on e co un t of

fo rg e ry ov e r a tho us a nddo lla

rs . Pe tit ion e r w a s se nte nc e d to eleve n months and twenty -nine day s for the misdemeanor assault conviction, six y ear s for e ach felony conviction of for g ery

over f ive hundre d dollars, ten y ear s for the f elony conviction of theft
ov e r a tho us a nddo lla

rs , a ndte n y e ars fo r the fe lon y c on vic tio n o f f

or g e ry ov e r a

tho us a nddo lla

rs

. Acc ording to the judgme nt forms, the trial court ordered t h e felony sentenc es to be served
concur rently for a ten y ear sentenc e, with the misdemea nor sentence to be se rved c onsecutively , for an ef fec tive sentenc e of te n y ear s, eleve n (11) months, and twe nty -nine (29) day s, with all sentence s to be serve d in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection. On October 15, 2004, Petitioner filed a pe tit ionfo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s in L auder da le Cou nty Cir c uit Cou rt . Pe tit ion e r a lle g e d th a t hi s convictions wer e void bec ause, inte r a lia , h e re c e ive d a n il le g a l se nte nc e . T he tr ia l c ou rt su mma ri ly dismiss ed the pe tition wit hout an evidentiary hearing, f

inding that the issues ra i s ed by Petitioner
wer e not prope r subjects for habea s corpus re lief. We aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., joined.

Marvin Rainer , Henning , Tenne ssee, pro s e
.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L

. B le ds oe , As sis ta nt Attorne y Ge ne ra l; and Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorne y Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.-2- OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

I n th is pro s e app e a l, P e tit ion e r c la ims that he is e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f b e c aus e his conviction judg ments are void due to jurisdictional defe cts. Specifica lly , Petitione r conte nds that he pled g uilty to an illega l se ntence which the trial court did not have jurisdicti o n t o i mpose. Petitioner arg ues that his sentenc e wa s illega l because Tenne ssee law prohibits a defe ndant from serving a misdemea nor sentenc e in the De partment of Corr ection whe re the sentenc e is not served
c on c ur re ntl y wi th a fe lon y of

fe ns e

. He arg ue s that he a g re e d to e nte r g uil ty ple a s to a ll c ha rg e s in
e xch a ng e fo r a

c on c ur re nt s e nte nc e fo r a ll f

e lon y of fe ns e s a nda

c on se c uti ve se nte nc e fo r h is misdemeanor offe nse. As stated above, all of the ag ree d upon sentenc es we re or dere d to be serve d in the De pa

rt me nt o f C orr e c tio n. Pe tit ion e r a rg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr on e ou sly

or de re d h is
consec uti v e mi sdemea nor sentenc e to be se rved in the D epartment of Correc tion rather tha n in a local jail or wor

khouse. Petitioner d oes not assert that he enter ed the g uiltypleas only on the condition that the entirety of the sente nce, inc luding the se ntence for the misdemeanor conviction, be served in th e De p ar t m en t of Corre ction. Nor doe s he conte st the consec utive sentenc e itself. Rather, he arg ues t hat t he sentence rece ived was in contra vention of state se ntencing g uidelines and that he would not have voluntarily pled g uiltyto an illeg al sentenc e. Petitioner also arg ues that his pleas were not enter ed pursuant to his understanding of the plea
a g re e me nt. He a lle g e s th a t in or de r t o a vo id b e ing a dju dg e d a c are e r c ri min a l, he ple d g uil ty to a ll ch ar ges ex ce p tfo rge ryo v er fi v e hu n d re d d o l l ar s i n i n d i ct m en t n u m b er 9 9 -0 4 6 5 1 , wi t h t h atch ar ge to b e dis mis se d. He c la ims that alth ou g h both tr ia l cou ns e l and the pr os e c uto r a ssu re d h im that th is
c ha rg e wo uld be dis mis se d in e xch a ng e fo r the re ma ini ng g uil ty ple a s, the jud g e se nte nc e d h im t o six y ear s for the of

fense , to be serve d concur rently with his other fe lony offe nses. Petitioner arg ues that beca u s e h is p le a s w e r e n o t e n te r e d a c c o r d in g to h is u n d e r s tan d in g o f th e p le a a g r e e me n t, the pleas we re involuntarily

enter ed and the sentenc es ar e illeg al. He a sserts that the er ror may have
oc c ur re d b e c a u s eth et ri al c o u r t w a s se nte nc ing se ve ra l de fe nd a nts simult a ne ou sly . H e fu rthe r a sse rt s that his trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive in fa iling to pre vent the judg ments from being enter ed.

Addi t ionally , Petitioner arg ues that the c onviction judgment f or for g ery over f ive hundre d dollars in i n d i ct m en t number 99-04651 is prima f acie void because the judg ment form does not indic at e wh et h er Petit ioner wa s convicted by jury trial or g uiltyplea or

whether the cha rg e wa s dismiss ed. Petitioner also ar g ues that the misdemea nor assault judgme n t i s v o i d beca use it lacks pertinent information reg arding his pre- trial jail cre dits. P etitioner re quests that this case be
rema nded to the habe as court for g rant of habe as cor pus relief , and then transfer

red to the origina l
c on vic tin g c ou rt . Pe tit ion e r a rg ue s that the c on vic tin g c ou rt mus t va c a te the jud g me nts , c on du c t a bo ndhe ari ng , a ndapp oin t c ou ns e l. H e fu rthe r a rg ue s th a t he sh ou ld b e a llo we d to wi thdra w h is g uiltypleas.-3-

II. Stand ard of Review The purpose of a w rit of habe as cor pus is to inqui re into t h e l eg itimacy of the pe titioner’s imprisonment and restraint. See T.C.A. § 29-21-101. Whether a petiti oner should be g rante d habea s corpus r elief is a question of l aw. Be ns on v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 27, 31 (Tenn. 2004) . As such, our
re vie w o f the tr ia l c ou rt ' s o rd e r d e nying the pe tit ionis de novo wi th no pr e su mpt ionof c or re c tne ss g iven to the trial court's judg ment. Id

. The g rounds upon which a writ of habea s corpus is a vailable are very narr ow. McLaney v. Be ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001)

. The writ of habe as cor pus rea ches only

void judgments, not voidable judg ments. Arc he r v . S tate , 851 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 3- 16 4 (T e nn . 1 99 3) . “ A j ud g me nt i s v oid ‘only when it a

ppear s on the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt is render ed tha ta convic ting c ourt was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defe ndant, or that a

defe ndant’s sente nce of

imprisonment or other re straint has expired.’” Hogan
v . Mill s , 168 S.W .3d 753, 755 (Ten n

. 2005) (quoting Sta te v . R ic hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000)). “‘Jurisdiction’ in the sense he re use d, is not li mited to jurisdiction of the person or of the subject matter b u t also includes lawf ul authority

of the c ourt to rende r the pa rticular or der or judgme nt wh er ebythe petitioner ha s been imprisoned.” An gli n v . Mitc he ll , 575 S.W .2d 284, 287 (Tenn. 1979)

. A void judgme nt is one whose imposition di re ct l ycontra venes a statute. McLaney , 59 S.W .3d at 92-93. Such a void judgment is “subjec t to being se t aside at a ny time, even i f i t has become final.” Id . at 94 ( quoting State v. Mahle r , 735 S.W .2d 226, 227-28 (Te nn. 1987)). A voidable convic tion or sentence i s v al i d o n i t s fac e and r equire s evidenc e bey ond the fa ce of the
re co rd or judg ment to demonstrate its invalidity

. Id

. a t 9 3

. T h e p e ti ti o n e r ina h ab e a s c o rp us pr oc e e din g be ars the bu rd e n o f sh ow ing by a pr e po nd e ranc e of the e vid e nc e that th e jud g me nt i s v oid
or that the prison term has expired, and the petitioner is e ntitled to such relief. Se e W y att v . S tate , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000) . I f the pe titioner fails to make this showing , the habeas court may summarily

dismiss the petition w ithout appointment of counse l or a he aring . T.C.A. § 29-21-109 (2 00 0) ; se e e .g ., Ar

c he r, 851 S.W .2d at 164.

III . A nal ys is

A. Conviction for f

orger y over five hun dred dollars

Pe tit ion e r a sse rt s th a t th e c on vic tio n jud g me nt fo r fo rg e ry ov e r fi ve hu nd re d do lla rs is p ri ma fac ie v o idb e c au s e it

la c k s th e ap p r o p r iate in f o r mati o n r e g ar d in g th e man n e r o f c o nviction. Althou g hPe ti ti o n e r

o f f e r s n o authority

for his asse rtion, Tennesse e Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32( e) state s in pertin e nt p art , “ [a] ju dg me nt o f c on vic tio n s ha ll s e t f orth the ple a , th e ve rd ic t or fi nd ing s, and the adjudication and sentenc e.” See Tenn. R.C rim. P. 32(e). “ The information which is require d to be incl u d e d inth e ju d g me n t f o r m i s s tan d a

r d [, ] a n d it

is man d a to r y

th a t e a c h ju d g me n t f

o rm contain this information.” State v. Harry M ark Hurley, No. 23 3 , 1 9 88 WL 81017, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Aug . 3, 1988), perm. to appeal de nied (Tenn. D ec. 12, 1988) (af firming-4-

the judg ment of the trial c ourt on the merits but not as to its form afte r noting the trial court’s f ailure to indicate a f

inding of g uilty on the judgme nt f orm). Howeve r, “[t] echnic al violations related to the judgme nt forms and c ommitt al documents .

. . [do] not rende r t he petitioner’ s confineme nt illega l
as long as a valid convic tion and resultant leg al sentenc e we re imposed.” Ma rv in A nth on y Ma tth e ws v. Noles, No. 02C 01-9206-CC-00140, 1993 WL 46546, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, F eb. 24, 1993) perm. to appeal de nied (Tenn. June 1, 1993) ( citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36).

I t is our determination that the judg ment forms, taken as a whole, sufficie ntly establish that the judg ment for f

org ery over f ive hundre d dollars i s a valid conviction, and the f orm ref lects a me re te c hn ic a l om iss ion . V ie wi ng a ll of th e ju dgme nt f orms t og e the r, e a c h f

orm, e xce pt the on e in qu e sti on , in dic a te s th a t Pe tit io ner pledg uil ty to the c ha

rg e s a g a ins t hi m. E a c h o f the fo rm s indicating a g uilty plea to the other char g es also ref ere nces the judg ment at issue by decla ring how the sent e n c e s ar e to b e s e r v e d in r e lati o n to o n e a n o th e r

. T h e ju d g me n t f o r m a ls o in d ic a te s that Pe tit ion e r i s a

“ pe rs ist e nt” off

end e r, a ndit s e ts f

orth the se nte nc e Pe tit ion e r i s to se rv e fo r h is conviction on this charg e, as w ell as the applica ble pre trial jail cre dits. Additi onally , the sentenc e Petit io n e r r e c e iv e d f

o r th e c o n v ic ti o n is a

v a li d , le g a l s e n te n c e ina c c o r d a n c e w ith T e n nessee ’s sentenc ing statutes. T.C.A. § 40-35-112 to -504 ( 2003).

Ba sed upon t he record before us, we conclude that the j udg ment form for forg ery over f ive hundred dollars ref

lects a valid conviction and r esultant leg al sentenc e. We find that the trial c ourt’s f a i l u r e t o c h e c k

t h e b l a n k

o n t h e j u d g m e n tf

o r mi n d i c a t i n g t h a tP e t i t i o n e r p l e d g u i l t y i s m e r e l y a technica l omissi on rende ring the judg ment voidable, not voi d. As previously stated, the issue of a voidable judgme nt is not prope rly raised in a

petition for habe as cor

pus. See A rcher , 851 S.W .2d at 163. Petitioner is not entitled to habeas c orpus re lief on this issue.
Petitioner also arg ues that pursua nt to the plea ag ree ment, t h e ch ar g e of f org ery over f ive hu nd re d d oll ars sh ou ld ha ve be e n dism iss e d, a nd that he un kn ow ing ly a ndinv olu nta

ri ly ple d g uil ty to this char g e. Howeve r, there is nothing in the rec ord to suppor t this arg ument beca

use Petitioner failed to submit the neg otiated plea doc uments or the tra nscript of the g uiltyplea. It is the dutyof the appe llant to prepar e a r ecor d which conve y s a fa ir, ac curate and co m p l et e ac count of what tr a ns pir e d in the tr ia l cou rt wi th re sp e c t to the iss ue s w hic h f orm th e ba sis of

the app e a l. T e nn . R. Ap p P. 24 (b ); s e e a ls o Th o m p s o n v
. S ta te, 9 5 8 S.W .2d 156, 172 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) . The failure to do so results in a waiver of the issues. Id. Moreove r, we note that claims of an involuntary or unknowing g uiltyplea r ender a convic tion voidable, not void, and are properly addre ssed in the post-conviction forum, not in a petition for habea s corpus. See Cox v. State, 53 S.W .3d 287, 291-293 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 20 01 ); See also Smith v. Lindamood, N o

. M 2 0 0 3

- 0 1 8 7 2

- CC A

- R3

- H C, 2 0 0 4 WL 1 5 33827 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J uly 7, 2004), perm. to appeal de nied ( T e n n

. N o v

. 15, 2004) (holding that inmate’s cla im that her ple a bar g ain ag ree ment was not honore d in the judgme nt enter ed or se ntence imposed prese nted at most a claim of mere ly a voidable, not void, judg ment, and thu s w a s n ot p ro pe r f

or ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f) . We the refore c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y found that Petitioner was not e ntitled to habeas c orpus re lief on this issue.-5-

B. Illegal S entence

Petitioner next arg ues t hat hi s misdemeanor c onviction is void and that he should be allowed to withdraw h is guilty

plea be cause the sentenc e imposed is illega l pursuant to Tenne ssee’ s Sentencing Act. Ac cording to the judgme nt form, Petitioner was se ntence d t o serve eleve n (11)
mon ths a nd(2 9) day s in the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n f or a c on vic tio n o f m isd e me a no r a ssa ult

. Pur su a nt t o T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 13 -1 01 (b )( 1) (2 00 3) , “ [ a] ssa ult is a c la ss A misdemeanor.” Gene rally , cla s s A misdemeanor offe nses ar e punishable by imprisonment for a period of time “ not gr eate r than el ev en (11) months twenty -nine (29) day s.” T.C.A. § 40-35- 11 1( e )( 1) (1 98 9)

. Th e a c tua l te rm of imp ri so nme nt i mpo se d b y the tr ia l c ou rt

is i n a c c or da nc e wi th thi s st a tut ory

g uid e lin e a nd the re fo re is not ill e g a l. Pe tit ion e r ar g ue s, ho we ve r, that the se nte nc e is illega l because the plac e of co nfinement re flec ted in the judg ment form contr avene s Tennesse e’s Sentencing Act. The Act provides that wher e inca rce ration is direc ted for a

period of le ss than one y ear , that period of confine ment is to be serve d in a local jail or workhouse

. See T.C.A. § 40-35-314, Sentencing C o m m i s s ion Comm ents (1991). B eca use Petitioner’s misdemea nor sentenc e wa s not ordered to be serve d concur rently with another f

elony sentenc e, it cannot be serve d in the Depa rtment of Corre ction as re flec ted in the judg ment form.
Petitioner does not dispute the term of imprisonment, nor does he claim t hat he entere d the plea ba rg ain only on the condition that the m isdemeanor conviction be serve d in the Depa rtment of Correc tion. Petit ioner a

rg ues only

that the place of conf

inement rende rs the sentenc e illega l, and that he wo uldno t ha ve kn ow ing ly ple d g uil ty

to an il le g a l se nte nc e . In s up po rt of his arg ume nt, Petitioner relies on the Te nnessee Supreme Court dec ision, Mc Lan ey v . B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90 (2001). I n that ca s e, the petitioner’s ha beas c orpus petition asserte d that the petitioner’s g uiltyplea wa s enter ed in exchang e for

an illeg al sentenc e. Se e id . at 93-94. The petition alleg ed that the de fendant h ad b ee n ch ar ged wi t h ra p e a n d wa s re l ea s ed o n b ai l wh en h e w a s c h a r g ed wi t h co m m i t t i n g a subsequent ra

pe and third de g ree burg lary

. Id

. The petiti oner asserted that the concur rent sente nce imp os e d f or his c on vic tio ns wa s in dir e c t c on tr a ve nti on wi th state la w. Th e tr ia l c ou rt su mma ri ly dismiss ed the petition without appointm ent of c ounsel. Id . T he su pr e me c ou rt re ma nd e d th e c a se to the habea s co urt for a ppointment of counsel and f urther f actua l findings, holding that if the petitioner’s a lleg ations about being on bail when he committed the two additional offe ns e s w e re true , then the judg ments were void be cause the illeg ality of the sente nce w as evide nt on the fac e of the judgme nts. Id

. We fi nd the pr e se nt c a se dis tin g uis ha ble fr om McLaney beca

use there is no dispute r eg arding the ac tual leng th of the sentenc e imposed for the c onviction. Whi le it is true that the misdemeanor judgme nt form indicates an improper plac e of c onfinement, it is our determination that the form simply re fl e c ts c le ri c a l e rr or s. Th erefo re, the pr op e r r e me dy is n ot t o v oidthe jud g me nt b ut t o amend the judg ment to c omply with the sentenc ing g uidelines. This Court has previously held that
a n il le g a l s e n t e n c e m a y s e r v e a s a b a s i s f o r h ab e a s r e l i e f o n l y i f t h e i l l e g a l i t y o f t h e s e n t e n c e is “eg reg ious to the point of voidness.” Coleman v. Morgan , 159 S.W .3d 887, 890 (Tenn. Crim. App. 20 04 ). Ac c or din g ly , “ me re c le ri c a l e rr or s in the te rm s o f a se nte nc e ma y

no t g ive ri se to a

vo id judgme nt.” Se e id

. Pursuant to Rule 36 of t he Te nnessee Rules of Criminal Procedure , “[c]lerical-6-

mistakes in judgments, orde rs, or o t h er p arts of the rec ord and e rror s in the rec ord arising fr om o v e r s i g h to r

o m i s s i o n m a y

b e c o rr e c t e d b y

t h e c o u r ta ta n y

t i m e

. ” T e n n

. R

. C r i m

. P

. 3 6

. In de te rm ini ng wh e the r the re ha s b e e n a c le ri c a l e rr or , th is C ou rt

ha s h e ld:
[T] he re cord in the c ase must show t hat t he judgment entered omi tted a portion of the jud g me nt o f the c ou rt

or that th e ju dg me nt w a s e rr on e ou sly e nte re d. Th e mos t reliable indicator that c lerica l error was made is the transcript of the hea ring or other paper s filed in connec tion with the procee dings w hi ch s h o w t h e judg ment was not
corr ectly enter ed. In the abse nce of these suppor t i n g fa cts, a judg ment may not be amende d under the clerical er ror r ule af ter it has bec ome final.

State v. Jac k Lee Thomas , Jr., C.C.A. No. 0 3 C 0 1 -9504-CR -00109, 1995 WL 676396, *1 (Tenn. Cr im. Ap p, . at Kn oxvil le , Nov . 15, 19 95 ) (n o T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 1 a pp lic a tio n f

ile d) ; se e als o D on ald W

. Rhea, J r. v. State, N o

. M 2 0 0 3

- 0 1 0 3 4

- CC A

- R3

- CO , 2 0 0 4 WL 3 4 3 9 6 9 ( T e n n

. Crim . App., at Nashville, F eb. 24, 2004) ( no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed)

. After revie wing the rec ord and the available documents, we c onclude that the misdeme anor jud g me nt f

orm c on ta ins a n in c or

re c t mar kin g re su lti ng fr om cl e ri c a l er ro r. Al tho ug h th e re c or d is sparse , the misdemeanor

judgme nt form contains a ll necessa ry information and prope rly ref ere nces the ot her convicting documents. The form is only defic ient in that the box indicating the place of
c o n f in e me n t i s c h e c k e d f

o r th e D e p ar tm e n t o f Co rr e c ti o n r a th e r th a n a lo c a l j a il o r

w o rkh o u s e

. We fi ndthat th is c le ri c a l e rr or is n ot s uf fi c ie nt t o r e nd e r the jud g me nt vo id. Pe tit ion e r is no t e nti tle d to relief on this iss ue.
C. P re- trial Jail Cre dits

F ina lly , Pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t hi s c on vic tion f or mis de me a no r a ssa

ult is p ri ma fa c ie vo id be c aus e it la c ks a ny inf

orma tio n re g ard ing his pr e -t ri a l ja il c re dit s. “ Whe n a n a c c us e d is take n in to
c us tod y by the state , T e nn e sse e is r e qu ir e d to cred it the se nte nc e wi th the tim e se rv e d inthe ja il pending arr aig nment and trial a s well as the time subseque nt t o any conviction arising out of the orig inal offe nse for

which he w as tried.” State v. He nry, 946 S.W .2d 833, 834 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 97 ). I n th e pr e se nt c a se , the jud g me nt f orms r e fl e c t th a t pr e -t

ri a l ja il c re dit s h a ve be e n a pp lie d to all of Petitioner’s fe lony sentenc es, al l of which we re or dere d to be serve d concur rently . The
se nte nc efo r mis dem eano r as sau lt was ord ered to be s erve d co ns ecut iv elyto th ese f elo nyc on vic tio ns

. An inmate may not “ double-dip” for cre dits fr om a period of continuous confineme nt. Christ opher Johnson v. Tenn. Dept. of Correction, No. 95-2065-II , 1996 WL 442740 (Tenn. Ct. App., Aug . 7, 19 96 ); see also Christopher A. Johnson v. State, N o

. E 2 0 0 2

- 0 1 2 0 8 -CCA-R 3

- PC , 2 0 0 3 WL 21145504 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, May 16, 2003), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. O ct. 6, 2003). A de fendant incarc erated prior to trial who r ece ives consec utive sentenc es is only allowed pre- trial jail c redits to be applied toward the first sentenc e. See Christopher A. Johnson v . State, No. E2002-01208-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 WL 21145504, at *2. Petitioner’s pre -trial jai l cr ed i ts were
corr ectly applied to his first sentenc e of ten y ear s for the felony convictions, and prope rly omitted-7-

from his consec utive sentenc e for misdemeanor assault. Acc ording ly , Petitioner’s judgme nt is not void on its face, and he is not entitled to relief on this issue.

CO NC LU SION

For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the trial court’s denial of ha beas c orpus re lief.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE