1



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

AT JAC KSON
ALO NZ O C . WILL IAM S v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 5782 Joe H. Walker, Judge

No. W2003-02702-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Dece m ber 16, 2004

The Petitioner, Alonzo C. W illiams, appeals the trial c ourt' s denial of his petition for ha beas corpus r elief. TheState has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial c ourt' s denial of re lief pursuant to Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. Be causePetitioner has fa i l ed t o al l ege a gr o u n dfo r r el i ef wh i ch wo u l dre n d ert h e j u d gm en tv o i d , we gra n tt h e S t at e's motiona 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 D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, 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. Alonzo C . Wil liams, pro se. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral & Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. T urne r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

I n 1983, Petitioner Alonzo C . Wil liams was convicte d of two counts of third de g ree burg lary
. Se e Al on zo C. W ill iam s v . S tate , No. 03C01-9806-CR-00203, 1999 WL 595419, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, Aug . 10, 1999), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. D ec. 27, 1999)
. Be causethe Petitioner had seve ral prior felony convictions, the Petitioner was f ound to be an2

habitual criminal and his sentence s wereenhanc ed to life terms. Id. The Petitioner’s c onvictions and life se ntence s wereaff irmed on direc t appea l. See State v. Alonzo Clinton W illiams , 1984 Tenn. Crim. App. L exis 2663 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, Nov, 20, 1984). S u b s e q u e n t l y, Petitioner unsucce ssfully

soug ht post-conviction relief
. Se e Al on zo C. W ill iam s v . S tate , No. 03C01-9806-CR-00203, 1999 WL 595419, at *1; Alonzo Cli nton W illiams , N o . 1 2 8 3 , 1 9 9 0 WL 16875, at * 1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Fe b. 27, 1990); Al on zo W ill iam s v . S tate , No. 1100, 1987 WL

7319, at * 1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Mar. 4, 1987) , perm. to appeal denied , ( Te nn . M a y

11 , 1 98 7) . Pe tit ion e r i s c ur re ntl y c on fi ne d at We st T e nn e sse e State Penitentiary

in Henning , Tenne ssee. OnOc tob e r 2 3, 20 03 , Pe tit ion e r f ile d a pe tit ionfo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s a lle g ing that hi s jud g me nts of

c on vic tio n w e revo id. Spe c if ic a lly , h e a lle g e d th a t th e c on vic tio ns e le vatin g him to habitual criminal status, i.e. , the 1974 Knox C ounty conviction for simple robbe ry , the 1981 Davidson County

conviction for e scapefrom a pe nitentiary , and the 1964 South Carolina conviction for house brea

king w erevoid. On October 29, 2003, the trial court denied re lief, finding that (1) the Petitioner f ailed to attac h a copy

of the judg ments to the petition , (2) the Petitioner’s life sente nces ha ve not expired, (3) the trial court ha d jurisdiction to sentence the Petitioner to life, and (4) if the petition wereconsidere d a petition for post-c onviction relief, the court wa s without jurisdi ction and pre vious petitions for post-conviction relief had alr eady

been denied. Petitioner timelyfiled a noticeof appe al document. TheState filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the lower court’s de nial of habe as cor pus relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of theCou rt

of Crimi na l A pp e a ls. I n it s mo tio n, theState a sse rt s th a t th e trial c ou rt didno t e rr

in summarily

dismiss ing the petition. W e ag ree . The Petitioner’s pe tition for habea s corpus re lief fails fo r thr e e re a so ns . First, the pr ocedur al re quirements for habea s corpus re lief ar e mandatory and must be scrupulously

followed. Archer v . State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993) . The Petitioner has failed to attach either

the copies of

the judg ments of conviction or the indictments to his petit ion. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21- 107(b) (2). An a pplication for the issuanc e of ha beas c orpus may be summarily

dismiss ed for

failure to attach the judg ment forms. Id.; se e also State ex rel. W ood v. Johnson, 393 S.W .2d 135, 136 (Tenn. 1965)
. Next, habeas c orpus re lief is available in this st ate 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. Arc he r, 851 S.W .2d 164; Potts v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . U nli ke thepo st- c on vic tio n p e tit ion , th e pu rp os e of the ha beas c orpus petition is to contest a void, not merely a voidable, judg ment. Sta te ex re l. Newsome v. H

enderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). A petitioner c annot collater ally

attack a fac ially valid conviction in a habe as cor pus proce eding
. Potts v. State, 833 S.W. 2d60 , 6 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) ; Sta te ex re l. H olb ro ok v . B om ar , 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887,3

888 (1963). ThePetitioner’s sentenc e has not e x pired. Additionally , the convicting court ha d jurisd ic tio n to c on vic t or

se nte nc e thepe tit ion e r. Th e Pe tit ion e r h a s n ot alle g e d th a t hi s convictions arevoid, rather he attac ks the validity

of the c onvictions used to enhanc e his prese nt s e n t e n c e s . P e t i t i o n e r

h a s f a i l e dt o i n c l u d e t h e s e j u d g m e n t s a s p arto f t h e r e c o r di n t h i s ap p e a l
. In State v. Mc Clint ock, 73 2 S. W.2 d 2 68 , 2 71 -7 2 ( Te nn . 1 98 7) , o ur su pr e me c ou rt

state d th a t " un le ss invalid on its face, a

prior judg ment of convic tion in a court with persona l and subject matter jurisdiction cannot be c ollatera lly attacke d in a subsequent pr ocee ding in whic h the cha lleng ed conviction is used to enhanc e punishment." Finally , the trial court properly determined that the petition could not proce durally be treated as a

petition for post-conviction re lief. The pe tition fil ed in 2003 is clea rly barr ed by

the statute of limitations and the petition does not seek to reope n a pre vious post-conviction petition. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-102(a ), -102( b)(3)
. 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. Acc ording ly , it is ordered that th e State ’s motionis g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is a ff irme d ina c c or danc e wi th Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE