### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 3, 200 8
ERIC JASO N T OLLEY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr iminal Cou rt f or Shelby Coun ty No. 04-05432 Paula Skah an, Jud ge

No. W2007-01642-C CA-R 3-HC - Filed July 21, 2008

The pe titioner, Eric Jason Tolley, appea ls the denial of hi s petition for writ of habea s corpus, a rguing that th e c ou rt

sh ou ld h a ve app oin te d c ou ns e l a nd he ld an e vid e nti ary he ari ng to co ns ide r his c la ims

. Fo ll o w in g o u r r e v ie w , w e a f f irm th e s u mm ar y d is mi s s a l o f th e p e ti ti o n o n th e g r o u n d s th at the petitioner fa iled to state a c olorable c laim for habe as cor pus relief

. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cr iminal Cou rt A ffirm ed

A LA N E. G LE NN , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J O SE P H M. T I P TO N , P.J., and D. K EL LY T HOMAS , J R ., J., joined.

Eric Ja son Tolley, Whiteville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr ., At torne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; De sh e a Du la ny , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney Ge nera l; and B et sy Carnesa le, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

FA CT S

On Novembe r 2, 2004, the petit ioner pled guilty in the Shelby County C riminal Court to two counts of ra

pe of a child and thre e counts of a ggrava ted sexua l battery. Pursuant to his guilty plea agre ement, he w as sentenced to concur rent terms of eight year s for each aggra vated se xual batter y conviction and to conc urre nt terms of 13.5 years for eac h child rape conviction, with the child ra pe and aggr avate d sexual battery s entenc es to be ser ved conse cutively, for a n eff ective se ntence of 21.5 year s at 100% in the De partment of Corr ection.
On June 7, 2007, the pe titioner filed a pr o s e petition for writ of ha beas c orpus , alleging,
a mon g o the r thi ng s, ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of c ou ns e l, e rr or s in the tr ia l c ou rt ’s e vid e nti ary ru lin gs , prosec utorial misconduct, insufficie ncy of the evidence in support of hi s guilty plea convictions, and-2-

denial of his right to a fa ir trial base d on the cumulative e ffe ct of the va rious err ors committed by the trial court a nd his c ounsel. In a written order enter ed on June 25, 2007, the habe as court found that the petitioner’s c laims, if tru e, wo u l d re nder his convic tions merely voidable be cause a deter mination of eac h of the issues would require proof beyond the fac e of the judgments. The c ourt noted that the allegations would be proper in a post-conviction petition, but the statute of limitations for f iling a petition for post-conviction re lief had e xpired. Acc ordingly, the court c oncluded that the petitioner wa s entitled to neither habe as cor pus nor post-conviction re lief and de ni ed the petition. There afte r, the pe titioner filed a timely notice of appe al to this court, arguing that the ha beas c ourt
err ed by denying his petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing.

AN AL YSI S

Whethe r the pe titioner is entitled to habea s corpus relief is a que stion of law. Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007); Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 ( Tenn. 2000). A s such,
ou r r e vie w i s de novo with n o presumption of cor rec tness given to the trial court’s findings and conclusions. Id.

It is w e ll- est abl ishe d in Te nn e sse e that th e re me dy pr ov ide d b y a wr it o f h abe a s c or

pu s is limit ed in scope and may only be invoke d wh er e t h e j udgment is void or the petitioner’s ter m of imprisonment has expire d. Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (T enn. 2007); State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 62 4 , 6 2 9 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ; S tate v

. D a v e n p o r t, 9 8 0 S. W

. 2 d 4 0 7 , 4 0 9 ( T e n n

. Cr im

. App. 1998). The judgment of a court of ge nera l jurisdiction is conclusive a nd presumed to be valid, and such a judgment can only be im peac hed if the record affirma tively shows that the re ndering c ourt was without persona l or subject matter jurisdiction. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 162 (Tenn. 1993). “A judgment is void only when it appe ars upon the f ace of the judgment or the r ecor d of the proce edings upon which the judgment is rende red that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to s entenc e a defe ndant, or that a defenda nt’s sentenc e of imprisonm ent or other restra int has expire d.” Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 778 (Tenn. 2007) (citations omitted). A petitioner bear s the burden of establishing a void judgment or illegal confine ment by a preponde ranc e of the
e vid e nc e . W ya tt v . St a te , 2 4 S. W .3 d 3 19 , 3 22 (T e nn . 2 00 0) . I f the ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion fa ils to state a c ognizable c laim for re lief, the tri al co u rt m ay sum marily dismiss i t without appointing
c ou ns e l or ho ldi ng a n e vid e nti ary he ari ng . Pa ssa re lla v. Sta te , 8 91 S.W .2 d 6 19 , 6 27 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 1994).

W e f in d n o e rr o r in th e h ab e a s c o u r t’ s s u mm ar y d is mi s s a l o f th e p e ti ti o n

. As the cour t observe d, the petitioner’s claims, taken as true, would rende r his convictions mere ly voidable, and his pe ti ti o n w a s f

il e d w e ll b e y o n d th e o n e

- y e ar s ta tu te o f li mi tati o n s f

o r f il in g a p o s t- c onviction petition. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40 -3 0 -102(a ) (2006) . Acc ordingly, we a ffirm the summary dismiss al of the pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus.

CO NC LU SION-3-

Because the pe tition fo r writ of habea s corpus fa ils to st ate a cogniza ble claim for

habea s c or pu s re lie f an d wa s file d be yo nd the on e -y e ar s ta tut e of lim ita tio ns fo r f

ili ng a pe tit ion fo r p os tconviction re lief, we aff

irm the summary dismissal of the petition.

___________________________________ ALAN E. G LENN, JUD GE