1



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

AT JAC KSON
JE FFREY E. DUNLAP v. TO NY PARKER, W ARDEN Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 04-CR -8553 R. LeeMoore , Jr., Judge

No. W2004-01042-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Septem ber 1, 2004

The Petitioner, Jeffre y

E. Dunlap, a

ppeals the tria l court' s denial of his petition for ha beas c orpus relief . The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court' s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. Bec ause Petitioner ha s failed to alleg e a g round for

relief which would re nder the judgme nt void, we g rant the State' s motion a nda ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the low e r c ou rt . Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J . joined. J eff rey E. Dunlap, pro se
. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Mark A. Fulks, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, the State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
On Dec ember

14, 1994, Petitioner was convic ted of two c ounts of ag g ravated robbe ry . OnF e br ua ry 27 , 1 99 5, he wa s se nte nc e d, a s a rang e I I I pe rs ist e nt o ff

e nd e r, to a

te rm of thi rty y ear s on both counts with both sentences to be se rved c onsecutively . These se ntence s were further order ed to be se rved c onsecutive to prior sentenc es re sulting in an e ffe ctive sente nce of2

ninety -four

y ear s. On Marc h 26, 2004, Petitioner filed an a pplication for writ of habea s corpus re lie f, a lle g ing that hi s c on vic tio ns arevo id b e c aus e theState ’s Rul e 12 .3 “ No tic e of I nte nt t o Seek Incre ased Sente nce” was not filed prior to trial and that the tria l court wa s without the authority and jurisdiction to enterta in the notice to enhance the punishment. On April 13, 2004, the trial court dismi ssed the petition, finding that the Petitioner has failed to provide documentation supporting his claim other than a letter fr om his attorney

and that these claims are n o tco gn i z ab l e i n a h ab ea s co rp u s p ro ce ed i n g. Habe as cor

pus relief is available in this state only when it appe ars on the f

aceof the judgme nt or the re cord that the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction to convict or sente nce the defe ndant or that the se ntence of imprisonment has otherw ise expired. Archer v . State, 851 S.W. 2d15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Potts v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . U nli ke thepo stc on vic tio n p e tit ion , th e pu rp os e of theha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionis t o c on te st a vo id, no t me re ly voidable, judg ment. State ex re l. Newsome v. He nderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). A pe titioner cannot c ollatera lly attack a fac ially valid conviction in a habe as cor pus proce eding
. Potts v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) ; Sta te ex re l. H olb ro ok v . B om ar , 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (1963).
Pe tit ion e r a lle g e s th a t heis e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f b e c aus e theState faile d to timely file a notice of intent to seek incr ease d sentenc e. Petitioner alleg es that the notice was fi le d a ft e r the tria l bu t prior to s e nte nc ing . Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to a tta c h th e no tic e to h is petition. A defe ct in the notice of intent to seek sentenc e enhanceme nt does not rende r an enhanc ed sente nce illeg al. See Sta te v . D e bro , 787 S.W .2d 932, 933-934 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1989). More over, our

supreme c ourt has dete rmined that a f ailure to file a

Rule 12. 3 notice, even until the day

of trial, did not rende r that notice ine ffe ctive, unless the de fendant can establish prejudice
. See State v . Stephenson , 752 S.W .2d 80 (Tenn.1988) . Her e, no such prejudice has bee n demonstrated. Finally , the Petitioner has failed to attach c opies of the judg ments to his petiti on. "Without question, the procedur al provisions of the habe as cor pus statutes are mandatory and mu stbe fo ll owe d s crup ul ou sl y ." Arc he r v . S tate , 8 5 1 S
. W
. 2 d at1 6 5 (c i t i n g Ba te ma n v . S mi th , 18 3 T e nn . 5 41 , 5 43 , 1 94 S.W. 2d33 6, 33 7 ( 19 46 )) . In v ie w o f the Pe tit ion e r' s f a ilu reto c omp ly with the mandatory

provisions of Section 29-21-107, summary dismiss al of the pe tition was proper . State ex re l. Allen v. Johnson , 394 S.W .2d 652, 653, 217 Tenn. 28 (1965)
. The Petitioner has not e stablished that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief. He has alleg ed neither

a fa cially invalid judgment nor

an expired sentenc e. Ac c or din g ly , it is OR DE RED that th e State ’s mot ionis g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is a ff irme d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.3 ___________________________________ 

### ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE