1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

MICH AEL ADDIS ON v . MR. TONY PARKER, W ARDEN Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 03-CR -8530 R. LeeMoore , Jr., Judge

No. W2004-00032-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Septem ber 22, 2004

The Petitioner, Micha el Addison, appe als the trial court's de nial of his petition for habe as cor pus relief . The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court' s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. Bec ause Petitioner ha s failed to alleg e a g round for

relief which would re nder the judgme nt void, we g rant the State' s motion a nda ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the low e r c ou rt
. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS AND A L AN E. G L EN N , J J . joined. Michae l Addison, pro se. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral & Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. T urne r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

The Petitioner Micha el Addison was c onvicted by a jury of first deg reepreme ditated murder and first deg reefelony murder a rising f rom the shooting de ath of Dona ld Ray Irby

. See State v. Addison , 973 S.W .2d 260, 261 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) , perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. 1998). The trial court mer g ed these convictions into one conviction for first deg reemurder. Id.2

The Petitioner re ceive d a sente nce of life imprisonment in the custody of the De partment of Correc tion. Id. On direc t appea l, this C ourt aff irmed the c onviction and sentenc e. Id. A petition seeking post-conviction re lief wa s filed and late r denie d by the trial court. This Court aff irmed the lowe r court’s denial of post-c onviction relief. Se e Mi c ha e l A dd iso n v . S tate , No. 1999-00432-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 WL1664222, at * 1 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, O ct. 24, 2000). Petitioner Addison is curre ntly confine d at the Northwest Correc tional Compl ex in L ake C o u n t y. On Dec ember

4, 2003, Petitioner filed a pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus alleg ing that his judgment of c onviction was void. Specifically , he alleg es that (1) the judg ment does not set forth the plea

as re quired by

Rule 32(e) , Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure and (2) the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction to sentencehim for both preme ditated murder and fe lony

murder in the same judg ment. By order enter ed De cembe r 11, 2003, the trial c ourt denied r elief, f inding that (1) “ the judg ment is complete and in a ccor danceof T.C.A. § 40-3- 5-209 and Rule 32( e) of the Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure. Thejudgme nt clearly indicates that the de fendant wa s f ou ndg uil ty

by jur y ve rd ic t,” a nd(2 ) that th e jury fo un d th e Pe tit ion e r g uil ty of theof fe ns e o f m u r d e r i n t h e f i r s td e g r e e i n t h e p e rp e tr a t i o n o f a f e l o n y. Habe as cor

pus relief is available in this state only when it appe ars on the f

aceof the judgme nt or the re cord that the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction to convict or sente nce the defe ndant or that the se ntence of imprisonment has otherw ise expired. Archer v . State, 851 S.W. 2d15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Potts v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . U nli ke thepo stc o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n , t h e p u rp o s e o f t h e h ab e a s c o rp u s p e t i t i o n i s t o c o n t e s ta v o i d , n o tm e r e l y a voidable, judg ment. State ex re l. Newsome v. He nderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). A pe titioner cannot c ollatera lly attack a fac ially valid conviction in a habe as cor pus proce eding

. Potts v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) ; Sta te ex re l. H olb ro ok v . B om ar , 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (1963). Reg arding the Petitioner’s complaint that the jury ’s dual finding s for pre meditated and felony murder violate double jeopar dy principles, this issue was unsucc essfully raised on dir ect appeal. See Addison , 973 S.W .2d at 266-267. More over, a s noted previously by this Court, t he judgme nt of conviction re flec ts onlyone convic tion and one sente nce f or first deg reemurder. Id. Finally , any

claims involving prote ctions ag ainst double jeopar dy would mere ly

rende r a conviction voidable and not void. See W ill iamA. Ra ns om v . S tate , No. 01C01-9410-CR-00361, 1995 WL 555064, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Sept. 20, 1995), perm. to appeal de nied , (T e nn . F e b. 5, 19 96 ). A j ud g me nt w hic h is vo ida blec a n b e a tta c ke d o nly

by a pe tit ionfo r p os tconviction re lief, not throug h habea s corpus proc edure s. Tay lor v . S tate , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. Next, R ule 32(e ), Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure, pr ovides that, “A judg ment of conviction shall set forth the ple a, the ve rdict or f indings, and the adjudication and sentenc e. . . . The judg ment shall be sig ned by the judg e and e ntere d by the cler k.” The judgme nt form in the instant case w as the uniform judgment doc ument as provided in Rule 17, Rules of the T ennesse e3

Sup re me Cou rt . T his fo rm wa s c omp le te d b y

thetria l c ou rt . T his jud g me nt f orm c omp lie s w ith the statutory

require ments of sec tion 40-35-209(e )(1- 19), Tenne ssee Code A nnotated. See Tenn. Sup. Ct . R. 17. The fa ct that the judg ment form fails to reflec t that the Petitioner entere d a plea of not g uiltyis not fatal to the judg ment. I ndeed, the fac t that the box es “g uilty ” and “ jury verdic t” wer e mar

ked by the trial court, nece ssarily implies that the Petit ioner e ntere d a plea of “not g uilty .” Ac cording ly , we c annot conc lude that this technica l omissi on is sufficient to re nder a jud g me nt o f c on vic tio n v oid . A s th is C ou rt ha s p re vio us ly

c on c lud e d, a

" te c hn ic a l" omi ssi on in a standa rd judg ment form does not re nder a judgme nt void and is theref ore not a basis for ha

beas corpus r elief. Se e J

am e s R .W . R ey no lds v . S tate , M2003-00112-R3-HC, 2004 WL 1293275, at *4 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. a t N a sh vil le , Jun . 8 , 2 00 4) ; Roger Lynn Pe rry v. Tony Parker, W arden, No. W2003-02342-CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL 370258, at *1 (Te nn.Crim.App. Feb. 27, 2004) , app. for perm. to appeal denied, (T e nn . Jun . 2 1, 20 04 ); Corey Johnson v . Tony Parker , W arden , No. W2003-02375-CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL221301, at * 1 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Jan. 26, 2004). The Petitioner has not e stablished that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief. He has alleg ed neither

a fa cially invalid judgment nor

an expired sentenc e. Ac c or din g ly , it is OR DE RED that th e State ’s motionis g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is a ff irme d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE