### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

JAM ES K. RO BBIN S v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Morgan County No. 8816 E. Eugene Eb len, Jud ge

No
. E 2 0 0 3 -0 0 8 6 8 -C CA -R 3 -PC Marc h 1, 2004 The Petitioner, James K. Robbins, appeals the trial court' s dismiss al of his petition for writ of ha beas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court' s denial of r elief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The pe titioner has not established that the cha lleng ed judg ment is void or that his sentence ha s expi red. Accor dingly , the State' s motion is gr anted a

nd 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 Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua ntto Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J. J. joined. Walter B. Johnson, I I , for the a ppellant, J ames K. Robbins.

Pa ul G

. S um mer s, Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; JohnH. B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Roge r De lp, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION
The petitioner was convicted by a Scott County jury of four counts of ag g ravated ra pe and one count of

ag g ravated assault. He was sente nced to se rve an eff ective te rm of for

ty y ear s in prison. On J une 28, 2001, the petit ioner filed a pro se petition for writ of ha beas c orpus in the Circuit Court for Morg an County . He a lleg ed that the judg ments were v o i dbeca use no sentenc ing he aringwas he ld a n d b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u rtw a s w i th o u ta u th o r i ty t o s e n t e n c e h i ma s a

R an g e I I , e s p e c ia lly
a g g ra vate d o ff e nd e r. Th e tr ia l c ourt

summaril y di sm isse d th e pe tit ion . T he pe tit ion e r t ime ly appea led.

I n T e nn e sse e , “ [a]ny

pe rs on imp ri so ne d o r res tr a ine d o f h is l ibe rt y , und e r a

ny pr e te ns e wh a tso e ve r, e xce pt [tho se he ld u nd e r f e deral a uth or ity], ma

y pr os e c ute a

wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s to inquire into the ca

use of suc h imprisonment and restra int.” Church v. State, 987 S.W . 2d 855, 857 (T e nn .Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ); Te nn

. Cod e Ann. §2 9- 21 -1 01

. Th e purp os e of a ha be a s c or pu s pe tit ion

isW e no te t h a t i n a d d iti o n to se e k ing ha b e a s c o rp u s re lief, t h e p e tit io n e r h a s a lso p re v io u sly fi le d fo r p o st1

co nvi ct i o n rel i ef

. Se e Jam es K

. R o b b i ns v. Stat e, N o

. 03 A 0 1

- 9 0 1 2

- C R

- 0 0 0 6 4 , Sco t t C o unt y (T enn. C ri m

. A p p

. June 1 9 , 1 9 9 1 ), a p p . d e n ie d (T e n n . N o v . 1 2 , 1 9 9 1 ).
-2- to contest void and not me rely voidable judgme nts. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W . 2d 157, 163 (Tenn. 1993) (c iting State ex rel. Ne wso m v
. He n d erson, 221 Te nn. 24, 424 S.W . 2d 186, 189 (1968))

. Habe as corpus relief is available only when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re cord that the trial court was without jurisdiction to c onvict or sentenc e the defe ndant or that his sentenc e has expired. Arche r, 851 S .W. 2d at 164. The burden i s on the petit ioner to establish that the judg ment is v o id o r th a t t h e s e n te n c e h a s e xp ir e d

. St a te e x r e l. K un tz v
. B o ma

r , 2 1 4 T e n n

. 5 0 0 , 5 0 4 , 3 8 1 S. W. 2d 29 0, 29 1- 92 (1 96 4) . Ape tit ion se e kin g iss ua nc e of a wr it of ha

be a s c or pu s ma y be summa

ri ly dismiss ed by

a trial c ourt if it fails to i ndicate that the petitioner' s conviction is void. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109. Upon due c onsideration, the c ourt conc l u d es t h at the trial cour t properly dismiss ed the petition. Pursuant to Tennes s ee Code Annotated Sec tion 29-21-107, a pe tition for habea s corpus relief shall state “[t] hat it is first application for the writ, or, if a pr evious application has been ma de, a copy of the pe tition and procee dings the reon sha ll be produce d, or satisfac tory reas o n s b e g iven for the f ailure so to do.” T he peti t i o n er asserts that this is the first application for writ of habe as corpus that he has fi l ed

. I n fac t, it appear s that this is the petitioner’s third a pplication for ha

beas corpus r elief, a ll based on the same sentenc es and convictions. See James K. Robbins v. S tate, No. 03C01-9703-00108, B ledsoe County (Tenn. Crim. App. Ma

y 20, 1998); J ames K. Robbins v. State, No. 03C01-9903-CR-00095, Morg an County (Tenn. Crim. App. Oc t. 5, 1999). The petiti oner ha s 1 failed to attach copies of his pr eviously filed petitions a nd judgme nts the reon or to addre ss his failure to do so. “Wit hout question, the procedura l provisions of the ha beas c orpus statutes ar e mandatory and must be followed sc rupulously .” Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W

. 2d at 165 (citing Bateman v. Smith, 18 3 T e nn . 5 41 , 5 43 , 1 94 S.W. 2d 33 6, 33 7 ( 19 46 )) . I n vi ew of th e pe tit ion e r’ s f a ilure to c omp ly with the mandatory

provisions of Section 29-21-107, summary dismiss al of the pe tition was proper. State ex rel. Allen v. J ohnson, 394 S.W . 2d 652, 653, 217 Tenn. 28 (1965)

. Ac c or di n g l y , t h e s t a t e ’ s m o t i o n i s g r an t e d

. T h e j u d g m e n t o f th e tr i a l c o urt i s a f f i r me d in
acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

____________________________________ _ __ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE