### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec embe r 4, 200 7
MA UR ICE T YR ONE HEN DR IX v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal from t he Circuit Court for Lake County No. 07-CR -8985 R. Lee Moore , Jr., Judge

No. W2007-01674-C CA-R 3-HC - Filed July 23, 2008

Th e pe tit ion e r, Maur ic e Ty ro ne He nd ri x, se e ks ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f f

ro m 19 88 Dav idson Cou nty c on vic ti on s f

or fo ur c ou nts of

se c on d d e gr e e bu rg lary a ndon e c ou nt o f g ra ndla rc e ny a ndhis resulting eff

ective se ntence of thirty-five ye ars. The petitioner conte nds that h i s sentenc es have expire d and that the judgments of c onviction are void. We a ffirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Affir med
J OS EP H M. T I P TO N , P.J., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which R OBER T W. W EDEMEYER , J., and D AVI D G. H AYES , S R

. J., joined.
Maurice Tyrone H endrix, Tiptonville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se. Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter ; and David H. Findley, As s i s t an t Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
Acc ording to the parties and documents attache d to the petit ion, the convictions were ba sed up on g uil ty ple a s and we re a s f oll ow s:

Case no. Count no. Of fense Sentence 88-W-321 1 Bur g lary , second de g ree 10 y ear s 88-W-322 1 Bur g lary , second de g ree 10 y ear s 88-W-322 3 Bur g lary , second de g ree 15 y ear s 88-W-322 5 Bur g lary , second de g ree 15 y ear s 88-W-322 8 Gra nd larc eny 10 y ear sT h is ju d g m e n t ac tu a lly sta te s th a t t h e se n te n c e in c o u n t 1 o f c a se n u m b e r 8 8 -W -3 2 2 is t o ru n c o n c u rr e n tly 1
t o “coun t s 5 & 7, 88-W

- 32 2, ” but becaus e t here i s n ot hi ng i n t he r ecor d r egar di ng a cou nt 7 , w e t ake t hi s t o be a cl er i cal
e rr o r. -2- Th e jud g me nts state tha

t c ount 1 of ca se numbe r 88- W-3 21 wa s to be se rv e d co ns e c uti ve ly to c ounts 1 and 3 of c ase numbe r 88-W-322 and conc urre ntly to counts 5 and 8; count 1 of c ase numbe r 88- 1 W-3 22 wa s to be se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to c ount 1 of

c a se numbe r 8 8- W-3 21 and cou nt 3 of c a se number 88-W-322 a

nd concur rently to counts 5 and 8; count 3 of c ase numbe r 88-W-322 was to be
serve d consec utively

to count 1 of ca se number 88- W-321 and count 1 of ca se number 88- W-322
and c on c ur re ntl y to c ounts 5 a

nd 8; a nd c ou nt s 5 and 8 wer e e a c h to be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y to a ll other c ounts. The judg ments for count 1 of case number 88-W-321 a nd counts 1 and 3 of 88- W-322 state that the total sentenc e is thirty -five y ear s. The pe titioner filed a pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus , an d t he trial c ourt dismissed the p et i t i o n, finding that the petitioner’s e ffe ctive sente nce ha d not expi red, that the judgme nts were valid, and that the p eti tion stated no basis for ha beas c orpus re lief. On a ppeal, the pe titioner’s argument is two-fold: (1) that he continues to be de tained despite his sente nces ha ving e x pired a

nd (2 ) t hat th e jud g me nts of c on vic tio n ar e vo id be c a us e the y are ba se d o n une nf

or c e a ble g uil ty ple a s. Reg ardingthe expiration of his sentenc es, t he petitioner a rg ues that ac cordingto TDOC rec ords, the sentenc e for

count 5, ca se number 88- W-322, ex pired on De cembe r 23, 2000, wher eas the sentenc e for c ount 3 was ac tivated on September 24, 2004, d es p ite the fa ct that these two se ntence s were or de re d to ru

n c on c ur re ntl y
. He argue s that c ount 3 sh ou ld have e xpir e d w ithc ount 5 , a nd , b e c a us e it is t he only

sentenc e re maining f

or him to serve, he is being detained illeg ally . He f urther states that e ve n if

c ount 3 did

no t e xpir e wi th c ount 5 , h e ha s se rv e d th e fu ll s e nte nce, when h is
acc umulated “g ood time/prog ram credits” a re ta ken into acc ount. The petitioner’ s alternative
argume nt i s th a t hi s guil ty ple a s to the a

bo ve c on vic tio ns and se nte nc e s are un e nf or c e a ble be c a us e the sentenc es could not mathematica lly be run consec utively and concur rently in the manner

order ed by the judg ments and that the judg ments, theref ore, a re void. The state c ounters that the de fenda nt’s thirty -five- y ear

eff ective sentenc e has not e x pired, that the judgme nts a re not void, and that the trial court prope rly

dismiss ed the pe tition.
The d e te r mi n a ti o n o f w h e th e r h a

b e a s c o r p u s r e li e f s h o u ld b e g r an te d is a qu e s ti o n of law which we revie w de novo on a ppeal. Ha

rt v. State , 2 1 S

. W

. 3 d 9 0 1, 903 (Tenn. 2001) . Habe as c or pu s r e lie f wi ll be g ra

nte d w he n th e pe tit ion e r c an s ho w that hi s ju dg me nt i s v oid , n ot m e re ly
vo ida ble . T ay lor

v. State , 9 95 S.W. 2d

78 , 8 3 (T e nn
. 19 99 ). To thi s e nd , a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s is g rante d only

“whe n it appea

rs upon t he fa ce of

the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt is render ed that a c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to sentence a def

endant or that the sente nce ha s expired.” Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (c iting Arc her v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993))

. The burden i s on the petitioner to establish that the judgme nt is void or that his se ntence has expired. Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (T en n. 2000); State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bom ar , 2 1 4 T en n
. 500, 504, 381 S.W .2d 290, 291-92 (1964) . I f the petit i o ner c arr ies this burden, he is entitled to immediate re lease . Passare lla v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) . Howeve r, t h e t ri al cour t may dismiss a petition for wr it of-3-

habea s c o r

p u s w ithout an evidentiary hear ing a nd without appointing a la wy er w hen the pe tition does
n o t s tate a c o g n iz a b le c la im f o r r e li e f

. H ic kma n v
. St a te , 1 5 3 S. W. 3 d 1 6 , 2 0 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 4 ) ; S tate e x. rel. Edmondson v. He nderson, 220 Te nn. 605, 609, 421 S.W .2d 6 3 5 , 636 (1967); see also T.C.A. § 29-21-109.

I n th e pr e se nt c a se , w e c on c lud e that the tr ia l c ourt pr op e rl y dis mis se d th e pe tit ion

be c a us e i t d o es not state a c og nizable claim for r elief. The judgme nts refle ct, and the pe titioner acknow ledg es, that his eff ective se ntence , imposed on J uly 13, 1988, is thirty -five year s. The judgme nt forms attac hed to the petition state that this effe ctive sente nce w as orde red by running two ten-y ear sentenc es and one fiftee n-y ear sentenc e conse cuti vely

to eac h other, with the re maining sentenc es runningconcur

rently to the others. Althoug h the j udg ment forms st ate that the t wo fiftee ny ear sentenc es in co u n t s 3 and 5 ar e to run c oncurr ently with eac h other, the f

orms also state that
c o u n t 3 is to b e s e r

v e d c o n s e c u ti v e ly

to th e tw o te n - y e ar s e n te n c e s in c o u n t 1 , c a s e nu mb e r 8 8

- W321 and count 1, c ase numbe r 88-W-322. With an effe ctive total sentenc e of thirty -five y ear s, we fail to see how

the petitioner’s se ntence s have e x pired.

We a lso c on c l u d e t h a t t h e r e i s n o m e r i t t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s ar g u m e n t t h a t h e i s e n t i t l e d to habea s corpus re lief bec ause his guilty pleas wer e unenfor cea ble and, thus, his judg ments invalid. The pe titioner asserts that be cause his fifteen- y ear sentenc e on count 5 was run concur rently to the two ten-y ear sentenc es in both counts 1, the count 5 sentenc e could not also run c oncurr ently to the fi ft e e n- y e ar s e nte nc e in c ount 3 . In s up po rt of his argume nt, the pe tit ion e r ci te s ca se s sta tin g that a g uilty plea based on an unenforce able promise is invalid. See Mar k A. Perc y

v. Tenn. De p’t of Corr., No. M2001-01629-COA- R3-CV, Davidson County (Tenn. Ct. App. F eb. 2 6 , 2 0 0 3); Eric B oy d v. State, No. E2001-02069- CCA-R3-PC, Knox County (Tenn. Crim. App. Oc t. 10, 2002); Br ett Rae
v
. St a te , C. C. A

. N o
. 0 3 C0 1

- 9 9 0 1

- CC

- 0 0 0 2 9 , Se v ie r Co u n ty ( T e n n
. Cr im

. A p p
. Jan
. 1 8 , 2 0 0 0 )

. We
no te ini tia lly

tha t no ne of the c a se s c ite d by the pe tit ion e r inv olv e ha be a s c or pu s p ro c e e din g s. I t is tr ue that sentenc es imposed in direc t contrave ntion of the law are void and illegal and that habea s corpus r elief is ava ilable in case s in which gu ilt y p le a s a re induc e d b y le ga lly un e nf or c e able sentenc es. See, e .g., McLane y v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 909 (Tenn. 2001), overr uled on other grounds by Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007)

. In t he present case, however, the petitioner has not presente d a cla im that his sentences violated the law, that the t rial cour t was without jurisdiction to e nte r t he jud g me nts , o r e ve n th a t he e nte re d h is guil ty ple a s und e r t

he ind uc e me nt t hat he wo uld be ser ving le ss than thirty -five year s. There fore , the j udg ments are not void and the petitioner is not entitled to habea s corpus re lief.

We rec og nize, however , that the judg ments entere d in the petitioner’s c ase a re inc onsistent in that they

order counts 5 and 8 to r

un concur rently with the two counts 1 and with count 3, eve n though those three sentenc es a re ru n consec utively to eac h other. This inconsistency cre ated the confusion whe reby

the petitioner be lieved that his fifteen- y ear sentenc e for

count 3 expired with the fiftee n-y ear

sentenc e for

count 5, despite that he had not serve d his full thirty -five year eff ective sentenc e. B eca

use the judgme nts state that the petitioner’s eff ective se ntence is thirty -five year s, we conclude that the inconsistency in the judgme nt s d o es n o t rende r the judg ments void or that the petition er has otherwise pr esente d a color able c laim for habe as cor pus relief . See, e.g ., Smit h v.-4-

L e wi s, 20 2 S. W.3 d 1 24 , 1 30 (T e nn . 2 00 6) (p e tit ion e r’ s guil ty ple a and c onvi cti on

we re no t vo id wher e re cord did not demonstrate on its face that the illeg al provision of ea rly rele ase e ligibility

was a bar g ained- for e lement of pe titioner’s plea) . Fur thermore , the petitioner argues that the sentenc es and judg ments are v o i d beca use they are impossibl e to serve in the manner indicated by

the trial court, not bec ause the y

violate a pa

rticular provision of the law. We c onclude that the inconsistency noted in the judg ments are cler ical er rors that do not void the j udg ments. See Coleman v. Morg an, 150 S.W .3d 887, 890-91 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (“[M]ere cler ical err ors in the terms of a sentenc e may not give rise to a void judg ment.”).

Ba sed on the for eg oing and t he record as a whole, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt dis mis sin g the pe tit ion

fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s.

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, PRES IDIN G JUDGE