### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

SA MM IE L. TA YLO R v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wayne County No. 13215 Robert

Hollow ay, Judge

No. M2003- 02954-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Novem ber 15, 2004

This matter is befor e the Court upon the State’s m otion to aff irm the j udg ment of t he trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petitioner ha s a pp e a le d th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r s umm ari ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ion fo r the writ o f h abe a s c or pu s. I n that petition the petitioner soug ht a writ of ha beas c orpus to rele ase him fr om his conviction for
e sp e c ia lly a g g ra va te d r ob be ry . We are pe rs ua de d th a t th e tr ial c ou rt wa s c or re c t in su mma

ri ly dismiss ing the habea s corpus pe tition and that this case meets the c riteria f or af firm an ce pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. Accor dingly , the State’s motion is gra nted and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Sammie L ee T ay lor, pro se, Clifton, Tenne ssee. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Helena W al t o n Yar broug h, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
The pe tition er wa s co nvicted in Shelby Countyof fe lony

murder, e specia lly

ag g rava ted kidnaping , espec ially

ag g ravated robbe ry

and ag g ravated sexual battery

. He was sentenc ed to life without the possibil ity

of par ole on the murde r convic tion and an ef fec tive sentenc e of six ty -two (62) y ear s on the rema ining convictions. The trial court order ed the six ty -two (62) y ear sentenc e to run
c on se c uti ve ly

to the lif e sen ten ce. T he jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt wa s a ff ir me d o n d ir e c t app e a l. See State v. Sammie L ee T ay lor, No. 02C01-9501-CR-00029, 1996 WL 580997 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J acks on , Oc t. 1 0, 19 96 ) p e rm . to app e a l de nie d ( Te nn . 1 99 7) . T he pe tit ion e r the n s ou g ht p os t--2-

convictio n r e li e f w h ic h w a s d e n ie d b y th e tria l c o u r t a n d a f f irme d o n ap p e a l. Se e Sa mmie L ee Tay lor v. State, No. W 1999-00977-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 WL 714387 (Tenn. Crim. App. a t J ackson, May 26, 2000) perm. to appeal de nied (Te nn. 2000).

On Se ptem ber 4, 2003 , th e pe tit ion e r f ile d a pe tit ion se e kin g a

writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s to rele ase him fr om his conviction for espec ially ag g ravated robbery . The trial c ourt summarily denied the pe tit ion e r’ s p e tit ion fo r h abe a s c or pu s.

A writ of ha

beas c orpus is available only when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the
rec ord that the c onvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the de fenda nt or that the def endant is still imprisoned despite t he ex piration of hi s sentenc e. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993); Potts v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . Howeve r, if af ter a revie w of the ha beas pe titioner’s filings the trial court de termines that the petitioner would not be entitled to r e lie f, the n th e pe tit ion ma y be su mma

ri ly dis mis se d. Te nn . Co de An n. § 2 9- 21 -1 09 ; State e x re l. B yrdv. B oma

r, 38 1 S. W.2 d 2 80 (T e nn . 1 96 4) . F urthe r, a tr ia l c ou rt

ma y su mma ri ly dis mis s a petition for writ of ha

beas corpus wit hout the appointm ent of a lawy er and without an evidentiary hearing if there is nothing on the fa ce of the j udg ment to indicate that the c onvictions addresse d there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), supe rce ded by statute as stated in State v. Steven S

. Newma n, No. 02C 01-9707-CC-00266, 1998 W L 104492, at *1 n.2 (Tenn. Crim. App. a t J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).

Petitioner’s habe as cor

pus petition appears t o at t ack only the validity

of the sente nce f

or espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry . Howeve r, Petitioner has not y et beg un to serve this sentence. Acc ording ly , he ca nnot attack the va lidityof this judgment a t this time. See Ta y lor v. Morg an, 909 S.W .2d 17, 20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); Ussery v. Avery , 432 S.W .2d 656, 658-59 (Te nn. 1968). Irre spective of

the validity

of petit ioner’s challeng e to the espe cially ag g ravated robbe ry

conviction, in light of pe tition er’ s curr ent life sente nce w ithout the possibi lityof par ole on the fe lony murder conviction, a challeng e to his especially ag g ravated robbe ry

conviction is prematur e at this time and is no t ap p r o p r iate f

o r r e v ie w

. “ A t s u c h ti me th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w o u ld b e e n ti tl e d to d is c harg e by
re a so n of ha vin g se rv e d tim e e qu iva le nt to his lif e se nte nc e , he wi ll be e nti tle d to pe tit ion fo r the wr it of habe as cor

pus to inquire into the validityof his further restra int.” Tay lor, 9 0 9 S

. W

. 2d at 20. Finding that the trial c ourt proper ly dismiss ed the pe titioner’s petition for habe as cor pus relief as pr e ma tur e , w e g ra nt the Sta te ’s mot ion to a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls p ro vid e s in te r a lia :
The Court, with the concurre nce of all judge s participa ting in the ca se, whe n an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, may aff irm the judgme nt or

action of the trial court by

memorandum opinion rathe r than by formal opinion, when:
The judg ment is rende red or the action taken in a proce eding befor e th e tr ia l ju dg e wi tho ut a

jury , a ndsu c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a-3- de te rm i n at i o n o f

g u i lt, a ndthe e vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t the finding of the trial judg e. . . .

We determine tha t this case mee ts the criteria of the above-quoted rule and therefor e we g rant the State’s motion filed under Rule 20 a nd we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE