W e a re a b le to d e te rm ine fro m the p e tit io n e r’s fil ing s tha t t h e c h a rg e s ste m fro m a n inc id e n t at a M e m p h is 1 Fa m i l y D o l l ar s t o re when t he p et i t i o ner al l eged l y ent ered t he st o re i n s earch o f em p l o y m ent and end ed up b randis hi ng a kn ife a t t w o sto re m a n a g e rs b e fo re fl e e ing the sc e n e , o b v io u sly w itho u t o b ta inin g e m p lo ym e n t. 

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

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ary 6, 200 7 EDWA RD JOHNS ON v. M AR K LU TTR ELL, SHER IFF and ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. P -30958 W. Mar k Ward, Jud ge

No. W2006-01409-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 6, 2007

The pe titioner, Edwar d J ohnson, appea ls the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petiti on for writ of habea s corpus that he filed while inca rce rate d awaiting trial for

two counts of ag g ravated a ssa ult . F oll ow ing ou r r e vie w, we a ff irm. Tenn. R. App . 3, Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt is Affi rm ed
D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., joined.
Edwar d J ohnson, Memphis, Tennessee , Pro Se.
Robert E. Cooper, J r., Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Ra chel West Ha rmon, Assis t an t At t o rney Gene ral; Will iam Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; Paul H ag erma n, Assistant D istrict Attorney Gene ral, for

appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
On J une 7, 2006, the pe titioner filed a pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus alleg ing that he was be ing ill e g a lly

re str a ine d w hil e a waiti ng tria l f or tw o c ou nts of

a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult that, h e a lle g e s, wer e founde d u p o np e r

jur ous information. He a lso alleg ed that the pr eliminary hearing e vidence was insufficient to establish proba ble cause. He subseque ntly amende d the petition to include sever al 1 alleg ations that are loosely -re lated constitutional attacks upon the probable c ause de termination that led to his incarc eration while awaiting trial. The tria l court dismissed the petition without t heT h e re is no e v id e n c e in the re c o rd to ind ic a te tha t t h e p e tit io n e r h a s b e e n d e n ie d b a il w h ile a w a iti n g trial. 2 N eve r t hel es s , t he proper r edre s s for a deni al of bai l woul d be a mo t i on for bai l i n t he t r i al cour t and, i f un s ucc es s f ul , an a p p e a l o f t h e b a il d e te rm ina tio n p u rs u a n t t o R u le 8 (a ) o f t h e T e n n e sse e R u le s o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re
. -2- appointment of counse l or an evidentiary hearing, f inding that the “ alleg ations [i n the petition] even if taken a s true do not show a void judg ment on its face .”
A N A LY S IS
Tenne ssee law provides that “[a]ny person imprisoned or

restrained of his liberty under any prete nse whatsoever . . . may prosec ute a writ of habea s corpus t o i n q u i re i n to the cause of such imprisonment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-101. Ha beas r el i ef

is lim ited and available only when it a pp e ars on thefa c e of thejud g me nt o r the re c or d o f the pr oc e e din g s u po n w hic h th e jud g me nt i s rende red that a trial court was without jurisdiction to convict the petitioner or that the petitioner’s sentenc e has e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). To prevail on a petition for wri t of habea s c or

pu s, a pe tit ion e r mus t e sta

bli sh by a pr e po nd e ranc e of

the e vid e nc e that a judgme nt is void or that a term of imprisonment has ex pired. See State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar , 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291-92 (1964). I f a pe tition fails to s tate a cog nizable claim, it may be d ismiss ed summarily

by the trial court without further inquiry . Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-109; See State ex rel. B yrd v. B omar, 214 Te nn. 476, 483, 381 S.W .2d 280, 283 (1964).
The de termination of whe ther to g rant ha beas c orpus re lief is a matter of law; ther efor e, we wi ll re vie w the tr ia l cou rt ’s fi nd ing de no vo wi tho ut a pr e su mpt ionof c or re c tne ss. Mc L a ne y

v. B e ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . The trial c ourt’s orde r addr essed the a lleg ations with respec t to a sufficie nt showing of

“a void judg ment on its face .” Howe ver, a s stated pre viously , the prope r scope of examination for habe as re lief is not limi ted to only the fac e of the judgme nt, but a lso includes the rec ord of the pr ocee dings upon w hich the judg ment is render ed. Ar cher , 851 S.W .2d at 164.
I n revie wing the alleg ations of thi s p et i t ion, we note that, on a ppeal, the pe titioner raises nineteen a lleg ations of er

ror that c an best be summarized as additional attac ks on the i nitial warrant le a din g to h is a

rr e st andsu bs e qu e nt pr ob able c aus e de te rm inatio n th a t le d to his inc arc e ratio n w hil e awa iting trial for two counts of ag g ravated assault. Howe ver, none of the a lleg ations raised in the petition, the amended pe tition or on appeal wo u l d re s u lt in the gr ant of ha beas c orpus re lief. The She ri ff of She lby Cou nty is w ith in h is auth ority

to i nc arc e rat e a

de fe nd a nt a waiti ng tria l w ho is un able or un wi lli ng to m ake bo nd

. Th e refore, we con clude that th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t e rr

in 2 dismiss ing the petition.
CONCL USI ON
Ba sed upon t he foreg oing and after full consideration of the r ecor d, arg uments of counse l and app lic able la w, thi s cou rt c on c lud e s tha t the pe tit ion e r ha s fa ile d to est abli sh that he is e nti tle d to habea s corpus re lief. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE