### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE

RUDOLPH POW ERS v . STATE O F TENNESSE E

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Wayne County

No. 14585

No. M2009- 00937-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Janu ary 6, 2010

The Appellant, Rudolph Powers, appea ls the trial court' s summary dismiss al of his petition for habea s corpus relief

. The Appellant failed to asser t a cog nizable clai m for which habea s corpus relief may be g rante d. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Crim inal Ap peals

T H O M A S T. W O O D A L L , J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D A V I D H. W E L L E S and J E R R Y L

. S M I T H , J J . joined.

Rudolph P ower s, pro se.

Robert E. Cooper, J r., Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; J ohn H. Ble dsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION

I n 1981, the Appellant wa s convicted of ag g rava ted ra pe and r obbery

acc omplished with a deadly wea

pon. See Rudolph Powers v. Neil Rone, Warden, No. 02C01-9208-CR-00191, 1993 WL 194008 (Tenn. Crim. App., J une 9, 1993), perm. to appea l denied, (Tenn., Oct. 4, 1993). For these offe nses, the Appellant rec eived sentenc es of life imprisonment and twenty -five y ear s, respe ctively

. I d. The Appe llant's c onvictions and sentenc es we re a ffirme d on direc t appea l. I d. The Appe llant has filed numerous petitions for post-conviction relief and habea s corpus relief

. All have been

unsucce ssful. See Ru d o l p h P o wer s v. State, No. W2007-01245-CCA-R3-HC, 2008 WL 539033 (Tenn. Crim. App., F eb. 27, 2008).

The Appellant filed the instant petition for a writ of habea s corpus on J anuar y 27, 2009. The Appellant claimed that he was denied his “Miranda Rights, Right to Counsel, Fa ir Acc ess to Court, [and] Fa ir Acc ess to the Appea l Courts.” The trial court dismiss ed the petition without a hear ing. The Appellant ap p ea l ed
, an d the State has filed a motion to aff irm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appea ls Rule 20. For the r easons state d below, the State’ s motion i s g rante d.Article I
, Section 15 of the Tenne ssee Constit ution g uara ntees the rig ht to seek habea s corpus relief
, and Tenne ssee Code Annotated Sections 29-21-101 et seq. codify the applicable proce dures for seeking such a writ. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which our law provides relief are very narr ow. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001). Habe as corpus relief is available in this state only when it appea

rs on the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proce eding s that the trial court was without jurisdiction t o convict or se ntence the def endant or that the s entenc e of imprisonment has otherwise ex p i re d

. Arc her v. State

, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). I n other words, habea s corpus relief may only be soug ht w hen the judgme nt is void, not mere ly voidable. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). A petitioner cannot collater ally attack a fac ially valid conviction in a habea s corpus proce eding

. P otts v. State

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

r, 364 S.W .2d 887, 888 (Tenn. 1963). A voi dable judgment or sentenc e is one which is fac ially valid but which require s evidenc e bey ond the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proce eding s to establish its invalidity

. See Tay lor, 995 S.W .2d at 83. "[W] here the alleg ations in a petition for writ of habea s corpus do not demonstrate that the judgme nt is void, a trial court may

corr ectly dismiss the petition without a hear ing." McL aney , 59 S.W .3d at 93.

Having revie wed the rec ord, the Court conclude s that the trial court did not err in dismiss ing the Appellant’s habea s corpus petition. Aside from the fac t that the Appellant did not comply with the m andator

y proce dural requireme nts for filing a habea s co rp u s p eti tion, Hickman v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16 (Tenn. 2004), the claims the Appellant raised in his petition would rende r the judgme nts voidable, not void, and they may not be collater ally

attacke d in a suit for habe as cor pus relief

.

For these rea sons, the State’s motion is g rante d. The judgme nt of the trial court is aff irmed in acc ordanc e with Rule 20.



### __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ T H O M A S 

### T. W O O D A LL 

### , J U D G E

2