### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE
GEO RGE G. FAULKNE R v. HO WARD CARLTON, WARDEN,

and th e STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for John son Coun ty No. 4315 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2004-00387-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Septem ber 24, 2004

The pe titioner, Georg e G. F aulkner , appea ls the order dismiss i n g h i s petition for writ of ha beas corpus. The state has f

iled a motion reque sting that thi s court affirm the trial court' s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petition fai l s t o es t ab l i sh a cog nizable claim for r elief. A ccor dingly , the state' s motion i s g rante d and the judgme nt of t he trial court is af firmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Cr im . App. R.
J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., joined.
Geor g e G. F aulkner , pro se.
Pa ul G . Summe rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. T ur ne r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J . Scott McCluen, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION The pe titioner was convicted i n April 1997 of first deg ree murder a nd attempted first de g ree mur der. Up on the se c on vic tio ns , h e wa s se nte nc e d to lif e imp ri so nme nt a ndtw e nty -f ive y e ars , re s p ec t i v el y
. On d i re ct ap p ea l , t h e ju d gm en t o f t h e tr i al co u rt wa s af fi rm ed

. S e e S t a t e v
. Ge o rge Glenn F aulkner , No. M1998-00066-CCA-R3- CD (Tenn. Crim. App. June 2, 2000), app. de nied (Tenn. Jan. 16, 2001).
On De ce m b er 19, 2003, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking a wr it of habea s corpus. The petitioner cla imed that his convictions and sentenc es we re r ender ed void as a result of his attorney s' ref

usal to permit him to testi fy in his own de fense at trial. The tr ial court dismissed the petition, finding tha t it failed to prese nt a valid claim for habea s corpus re lief.-2-

I n th is s ta te , “ [a]n y

pe rs on imp ri so ne d o r r e str a ine d o f h is l ib ert y , u nd 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 de ra l auth or ity ] , maypr os e c ute a writ o f h abe a s c or

pu s to inquire into the cause of suc h imprisonment and restra int.” Church v. State, 987 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101. T he purpose of a ha beas c orpus petition is 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 wsom v. Hende rson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S

. W

. 2 d 186, 189 (1968))

. Habe as cor

pus relief is available only when it appear s on the fac e of the judgme nt or the re cord tha t the trial court was without jurisdiction to convict or sentence the def endant or that his sentence has expired. Arche r, 51 S.W.2d at 164. The burden i s on the petit ioner to establish t hat the judg ment is void or that the sentenc e has e x pired. State e x re l

. Ku n tz v. Bomar, 214 Te nn. 500, 504, 381 S.W .2d 290, 291-92 (1964)

. The e ssence of the pe titioner’s claim is that his attorney s violated his F ifth Amendment rig ht to testify in hi s o wn d ef

ense. This c laim is not cognizable in a ha beas c orpus proc eeding . I f a claimed illeg ality

rende rs the judg ment or sentenc e voidable, r ather t h an void, no relief ca n be g ra nte d. Ar c he r, 85 1 S. W. 2d a t 86 1. Th e " a uth or ize d a ve nu e fo r atta c kin g a vo ida ble jud g me nt i s a p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f

. " S t a t e v
. M c C l i n t o c k , 7 3 2 S

. W

. 2 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 2 ( T e n n
. 1 9 8 7 )

. In this case, howe ver, it appe ars that the a pplicable statute of limit ations for se eking post-conviction relief has expi re d

. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 102(a) . Ba sed on our r eview of the re cord, pleading s , an d applicable law, this court conc ludes that the petition for ha beas c orpus re lief wa s proper ly dismiss ed. Ac c or din g ly , th e state ’s mot ion is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.

_______________________________ _ _______ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE