1

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JEFFREY E. DUNLAP v. TONY PARKER, WARDEN

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

No. 04-CR-8553 R. Lee Moore, Jr., Judge

No. W2004-01042-CCA-R3-HC - Filed September 1, 2004

The Petitioner, Jeffrey E. Dunlap, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus

relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of

relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because Petitioner has failed

to allege a ground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State's motion

and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of

the Court of Criminal Appeals

ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID G. HAYES and JOHN

EVERETT WILLIAMS, JJ. joined.

Jeffrey E. Dunlap, pro se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Mark A. Fulks, Assistant Attorney General, for

the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 14, 1994, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery. 

On February 27, 1995, he was sentenced, as a range III persistent offender, to a term of thirty

years on both counts with both sentences to be served consecutively. These sentences were

further ordered to be served consecutive to prior sentences resulting in an effective sentence of
2

ninety-four years. On March 26, 2004, Petitioner filed an application for writ of habeas corpus

relief, alleging that his convictions are void because the State’s Rule 12.3 “Notice of Intent to

Seek Increased Sentence” was not filed prior to trial and that the trial court was without the

authority and jurisdiction to entertain the notice to enhance the punishment. On April 13, 2004,

the trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner has failed to provide

documentation supporting his claim other than a letter from his attorney and that these claims are

not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Habeas corpus relief is available in this state only when it appears on the face of the

judgment or the record that the trial court was without jurisdiction to convict or sentence the

defendant or that the sentence of imprisonment has otherwise expired. Archer v. State, 851

S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993); Potts v. State, 833 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). Unlike the postconviction petition, the purpose of the habeas corpus petition is to contest a void, not merely

voidable, judgment. State ex rel. Newsome v. Henderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189

(1968). A petitioner cannot collaterally attack a facially valid conviction in a habeas corpus

proceeding. Potts v. State, 833 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992); State ex rel. Holbrook v. Bomar,

211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (1963).

Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the State failed to

timely file a notice of intent to seek increased sentence. Petitioner alleges that the notice was

filed after the trial but prior to sentencing. Petitioner has failed to attach the notice to his

petition. A defect in the notice of intent to seek sentence enhancement does not render an

enhanced sentence illegal. See State v. Debro, 787 S.W.2d 932, 933-934 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1989). Moreover, our supreme court has determined that a failure to file a Rule 12. 3 notice,

even until the day of trial, did not render that notice ineffective, unless the defendant can

establish prejudice. See State v. Stephenson, 752 S.W.2d 80 (Tenn.1988). Here, no such

prejudice has been demonstrated. 

Finally, the Petitioner has failed to attach copies of the judgments to his petition.

"Without question, the procedural provisions of the habeas corpus statutes are mandatory and

must be followed scrupulously." Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d at 165 (citing Bateman v. Smith,

183 Tenn. 541, 543, 194 S.W.2d 336, 337 (1946)). In view of the Petitioner's failure to comply

with the mandatory provisions of Section 29-21-107, summary dismissal of the petition was

proper. State ex rel. Allen v. Johnson, 394 S.W.2d 652, 653, 217 Tenn. 28 (1965).

The Petitioner has not established that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. He has

alleged neither a facially invalid judgment nor an expired sentence. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in

accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 
3

___________________________________ 

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE