### 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 ar y 7, 200 6 WAY MON PE RR Y R US SELL v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty

No. 5325 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2005-00311-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 13, 2006
The pe titioner, Way mon Perry Russell, filed a petition in the Harde man County Circuit Court seeking a wr i t o f habe as cor pus. The petitioner a lleg ed that the tria l court imposed conc urre nt sentenc es whe n conse cuti ve sente ncing was mandatory . The ha beas c orpus court dismi ssed the petition without appointi ng counsel or conducting an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner cha lleng es the dismissal. Upon our revie w of the re cord and the parties’ brief s, we a ffirm the judg ment of the habea s corpus c ourt. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which D AVI D H. W ELLES and J ERRY L. S MI TH , J J ., joined. Way mon Perry

Russell, Cl ifton, Tennesse e, Pro se.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r, B lin d A kr a wi , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; El iza be th T . Ri c e , D ist

ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, andJoe V a n D yke , A ssi stant D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
Fr om the scant re cord be fore us, it appea rs t hat on J anuary 30, 1990, the petit ioner c ommitt ed the offe nse of a g g ravated burg lary in Shelby County . He wa s convicted of this offense on June 28, 1990. Acc ording to the petition er , o n August 12, 1990, while he wa s serving his sentence for a g g ra vate d bur g lary , he e sc ape d f ro m c us tod y

a ndwa s c ha

rg e d inHa

rd e ma n Co un ty

wi th e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated robbe ry , two counts of espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping , and fe lony esca pe. On January 4, 1991, the petitioner pled g uiltyin Har d em an C o u n t yto one count of a g g ravated robbe ry , two counts of ag g ravated kidnapping , and one c ount of felony esca pe. Al s o o n J an uary

4, 1991, the petitioner pled g uiltyin Fay ette County to two counts of ag g ravated burg lary , wh i ch offenses ha dO n ap p ea l , t he p eti t i o ne r h as no t p ursu ed a ny c l aim s re l ati ng to h i s p eti t i o n fo r a w rit o f e rro r c o ram no b i s. 1
-2- occur red on January

30, 1990. The t ri al court sentence d the petitioner a s a Rang e I I I persistent of fe nd e r t o th irty

y e ars fo r e a c h o f h is a g g ra vate d ro bb e ry a nda g g ra vate d kidn app ing c on vic tio ns , six y ear s for his fe lony

esca pe convic tion, and fiftee n y ear s for e ach of hi s aggra vated bur g lary c on vic tio ns fr om F a y e tte Cou nty . T he tr ia l c ou rt ord ered that th e Ha

rd e ma n Co un ty

a ndF a y e tte Countysentenc es be se rved c oncurr ently with eac h other but conse cutively to the outs ta

nding Shelby Countyconviction for a g g ravated burg lary

. The pe titioner subsequently filed a “ Petition for Writ of Err or Coram Nobis an d / o r i n the alternative issuance of

a Writ of Habe as C orpus.” I n his petition, the petitioner arg ued that the tria l 1 c ou rt imp e rm iss ibl y imp os e d c on c ur re nt se nte nc ing in the Ha rd e ma n Cou nty a nd F a y e tt e Cou nty case s, maintaining that because he c ommitt ed the offe nses whil e on esca pe st atus, the t rial court was require d to impose consecutive se ntencing

. The ha beas c orpus court dismi ssed the petition, finding that th e tr ia l c ou rt

ha d th e jurisd ic tio n to imp os e the se nte nc e s the pe tit ion e r r e c e ive d. On app e a l, the petitioner c halleng es the trial c ourt’s ruling

. II. Ana lys is
I nitially , we note that the determination of whether to gr ant habe as cor

pus relief is a question of law. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001). As such, we will revie w t he trial c ourt’s finding s de novo without a presumption of corr ectne ss. I d. Moreove r, it is t he petitioner’ s burden to demonstrate, by

a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e, “tha t the sentenc e is void or that the confine ment is ill eg al.” Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000)

. Article I , § 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es an a ccuse d the rig ht to seek habe as c orpu s r e l i e f

. S e e T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 9 9 5 S

. W

. 2 d 7 8 , 8 3 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 9 )

. H o w e v e r , “ [s ]u c h r e l i e f is available only

when it appe ars f

rom the fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord o f t h e j u d g ment or the rec ord of the proce eding s that a trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence a defe ndant or that a def endant’ s sentence of imprisonment or other r estraint has e x pired.” Wy att, 24 S.W .3d at 322; see a lso Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21- 101 (2000). I n other words, habea s corpus r elief ma y be soug ht only when the judgme nt is void, not mere ly voidable. Tay lor, 995 S.W .2d at 83. “A void judg ment ‘i s o ne in w hic h th e jud g me nt i s f aci allyinv a lidbe c a us e the c ou rt la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n o r a

uth ority to rende r the judgme nt or beca use the defe ndant’s sentenc e has expired.’ We have r ecog nized that a sente nce imposed in dire ct contra vention of a statute, f or example, is void and il leg al.” Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted). On appe al, the State first ar gues that the pe titioner failed to comply with the proce dural require ments for filing a petition for a writ of habe as co rp u s . “Without questi on, the proc edura l provisions of the habeas corpus statutes are mandatory and must be followed sc rupulously .” Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993)

. Specifica lly , Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 29-21- 10 7 p ro vid e s:-3- (a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, signe d either by the party f o r w h o s e b e n e f

it it is in te n d e d , o r

s o me p e r s o n o n the pe tit ion e r’ s b e ha lf, a ndve ri fi e d b y a ff ida vit

. (b) The petition shall state: (1 ) T hat th e pe rs on in w ho se behalf the writ i s so ug ht, is i lle g a lly restra ined of liberty , and the pe rson b y whom and plac e whe re re str a ine d, me nti on ing the na me of su c h p e rson, if

kn ow n, a nd , if unknown, desc ribi ng the per son with as much particularity as prac ticable; (2 ) T he c a us e or

pr e te ns e of

su c h r e str a int

a ccor di ng to thebe st information of the a

pplicant, and if it be by vir t ue of a ny

leg al proce ss, a copy

there of shall be a nnexed, or a sat i s fac tory rea son g iven for its abse nce; (3) That the leg ality

of the re straint h as not alrea dy been a djudge d u p o n a p r io r p r o c e e d in g o f th e s a me c h ar a c te r , to th e best of the applicant’ s knowledg e and be lief; and (4) That it is first application for the writ, or, if a pre vious application ha s b e e n ma de , a cop y of the pe tit ion a ndpr oc e e din g s th e re on sh a ll be produce d, or satisfac tory rea sons be g iven for the failure so to do. As the State alleg es, the pe titioner failed to state that the leg ality of his restraint ha s not a lrea dy been adjudicate d and fa iled to state that t h e i nstant petition is hi s first application for a writ of habea s c or pu s. Se e Cox v. State , 53 S.W.3 d 287 , 292 (T e nn . Crim . App . 200 1)

. Ac c or din g ly , due to the se proce dural e rror s, the habe as corpus court could have dismi ssed the petition on this basis. However , the ha be a s c or pu s c ou rt de c lin e d to dis mis s the pe tit ionon pr oc e du ra l g ro un ds . Like wi se , w e wi ll a dd re ss the me ri ts o f the pe tit ion e r’ s c omp la int

. As we ha ve noted, the petitioner arg ues that the trial court should have imposed conse cutive sentenc ing be cause th eH a r d e ma nCo u n ty and F ay ette County

offe nses wer e committed while he w as on esca pe status. See Te nn . R

. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)( B) . Our re view of the rec ord re veals that the pe tit ion e r c omm itt e d th e F a y e tte Cou nty of fe ns e s o n the sa me day he c omm itt e d the She lby Cou nty offe nse, the off

ense for which he was incarc erated bef ore he esca

ped. The ref

ore, the trial court wa s no t r e qu ir e d b y

Rul e 32 (c )( 3) (B ) to i mpo se c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing . H ow e ve r, the tr ia l c ou rt c ou ld order the Fay ette County

sentenc e to be served consecutively to the Shelby Countysentenc e under Tenne ssee Rule of Proc edure 32(c) (2).
Addi tionally , beca

use the pe titioner committed the Harde man County offe nses while on esca pe status, the trial c ourt was r equire d to order the sentenc es for those o ff en s es t o be served-4-

consec utively

to the Shelby

Countysentenc e he w as ser ving at the time he esc aped. T he trial c ourt corr ectly imposed consec utive sentenc ing in this manner . There is no r equire ment that the trial court order the Har deman Countysentenc es ser ved conse cutively to eac h other. See Hog an v. Mills, 168 S.W .3d 753, 756 (Tenn. 2005). There fore , the rec ord does not r efle ct that any of t h e p et i t i oner’ s contested se ntence s are illega l. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to habeas c orpus re lief.
III. Conclusi on Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e af firm the judg ment of the ha beas c orpus court.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE