1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

JOHNN Y P AR KER

v. S TEP HEN DO TSON , WA RD EN, AN D S TAT E OF

TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 06-02-0185 Joe H. Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2006-02238-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled May 3, 2007

The Petitioner, Johnny

Parker , appea ls t h e l o we r court's denia l of his petition for habea s corpus re lie f. Th e State ha s f

ile d a mot ion re qu e sti ngthat this Court a ff ir m the tr ia l cou

rt purs ua nt t o Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f t

he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Th e Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to a sse rt a g ro un d that w ou ld
e nti tle him

to h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s d ism iss a l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e ntof t he Tr ialCo ur t A ffirm e d 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

D AVI D G. H AYES , 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.

J ohnny Parker , pro se.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l Mo or e , Sol ic ito r Ge ne ra l; So ph ia S. L ee, A ssistant Attorney

Gene ral , for the a

ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION

I n 1992, the Petitioner J ohnny Parker was convicted of attempt to c ommit first deg ree murder and re ceive d a twenty -three y ear sentenc e in the Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction. See State v

. Johnny Parker , No. 03C01-9307-CR-00214 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Nov. 22, 1994), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Ma r. 27, 1995). His conviction and sentenc e we re a ffirme d on direc t2

appea l. Id. The Petitioner later soug ht post-c onviction r elief alleg ing that counsel wa s ineffe ctive. Se e J oh nn yPa rk e r v . S tate , No. 03C 01-9706-CR-00214 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, May 18, 1998), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. F eb. 1, 1999). The Petitioner is curre n t l y co n fined at the Har deman County

Correc tional Center in Whitevill e, Te nnessee

. On September

20, 2006, the Petition er fi led a pe tition for habea s corpus re lief in the Har deman County

Circuit Court. As g rounds for relief, the Petitioner alleg ed that the judg ment of conviction was void. In support of his all ega t i o n , the Petitioner alleg ed that, at the time of the offe nse, t h ere was no of fense of attempt to commit first deg ree murder. I n an orde r ente red September 20, 2006, the lower court summarily dismiss ed the petition. I n its order, the lowe r cour t found: “Petitioner maintains there is no such offe nse as attempt to c ommit first deg ree murder f or wh i ch h e wa s convicted. Petitioner is not cor rec t. Attempt to commit first deg ree murder is a n offe nse in Tenne ssee.” A timely filed notice of

appea l was filed on Oc tober 17, 2006.

The de termination of whe ther to g rant ha beas c orpus re lief is a question of law

. McLaney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) , overruled in part by, Sum mers v. State, 212 S.W .3d 251 (Tenn. 2007). The T ennesse e C o n s t i t ution gua rante es a c onvicted cr iminal defenda nt the rig ht to seek habea s corpus re lief. SeeTenn. Const. ar t. I , § 15. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which habe as cor pus relief will be g rante d are very

narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A petition for ha beas c orpus re li ef

may only be g rante d when the judg ment is shown to be void, rather than
mere ly voidable. Id. A judg ment is void only when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judg ment or the
rec ord of the pr ocee dings upon which the j udg ment is render ed that the c onvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction or authority

to sentence a def

endant or that a defenda

nt's sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 85 1 S. W.2 d 1 57 , 164 (T e nn . 199 3) . On the oth e r hand , a void a ble jud g me nt o r s e nte nc e is
o n e w h ic h is f

a c ia ll y v a li d an d w h ic h r e qu ir e s e v id e n c e b e y o n d th e f a c e o f th e ju d g me nt or the
rec ord of the pr ocee dings to e stablish its invalidity

. Tay lor
, 995 S.W .2d at 83.

A p e t i t i o n e r

b e ar s t h e b u r d e no f

e s t a b l i s h i n g a v o i d j u d g m e n to r i l l e g a l c o n f i n e m e n tb y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. W yatt v. State, 24 S.W. 3d 31 9, 32 2 (T e nn . 2 00 0) . F ur the rm or e , it

is permissible for a court to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition, without the appointment of counsel a nd without an evidentiary hear ing, if there is nothing on the fa ce of the re cord or

judgme nt to indicate that the c onvictions or sentenc es addr esse d t h er ein ar e void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. Th e Pe tit ion e r a lle g e s that c ri min a l a tte mpt to c omm it fi rs t de g re e mur de r w a s n ot a n o ff e ns e in T ennesse e when he was convicted. Acc ording ly , he asser ts that the judgme nt ag ainst him is voi d. I n support of his alleg ation, the Petitioner relies upon this Court’s opinion in S ta t e v . B ria n Ke ith Kimbrough , No. 02C01-9308-CR-00182 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Nov. 2, 1994), aff’d by , 924 S

. W

. 2 d 8 8 8 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 6 )

. T h e o f f e n s e nu l l i f

i e d b y Kimbrough wa s c ri min a l atte mpt to c omm it f

ir st de g re e fe lony mur de r. Th e Pe tit ion e r wa s ind ic te d and c on vic te d of c ri min a l a tte mpt to c omm it f ir st d egree pre meditated murde r. The de cision in Kimbrough h a s n o b e ar in g o nth is c a s e

. Cr im in al attempt to commit first deg ree preme ditated m urder was and rema ins a valid criminal off ense in the state of Te nnessee

.3

The Petitioner’s se ntence has not expired and the trial court was with jur isdiction to enter the judgme nt ag ainst him. For these rea sons, the lower c ourt’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s re quest for habea s corpus re lief wa s proper

. When a n opinion would have no prec edential value, the Court of Criminal Appea l s m ay a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt

by me mor and

um o pi ni on

wh e 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 ju dg me nt o r a cti on is n ot a deter mination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the finding of the trial judg e. SeeTenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 20. W e conc lude that this ca s e s at i s fi es the cr iteria of Rule 20. Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d that the St a te ' s mo tio n is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is
a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f t he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE