# FILED July 16, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRU ARY SESSION, 1997
JEF FREYAL LEN H UDSON ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9605-CC-00200 ) Pe titioner/A ppe llant, ) BLEDSOE CO UNTY ) ) V. ) HON . TH OMA S W. GR A HA M, ) JUDGE JA MES BOWLEN, WARDEN, ) ) (HA BEAS CORPUS/ Appell ee. ) AGGRAVATED RAPE)

FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : JEFFREY ALLEN HUD SON, (pro se) JOHN KNOX WALKUP STSR CF, Route 4 Box 60 0 Attor ney General & Reporter Pikevi ll e, TN 37367 SARAM. BRA NCH Assist ant Attor ney General 450 James Robertson Par kway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 JA MES MI CHA EL T AY LOR Dist ri ct Attor ney General JAM ES W . PO PE , III Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al 265 Third Avenue, Sui te 300 Dayton, TN 37321

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

Th is is an appeal as of r ightby Jeffre y All en Hudson from the tr ial co urt’s orderdism issing his pe tition for w rit of hab eas corp us. The Circuit Co urt ofBleds oe C oun ty, Tenn esse e dism issed the petition withou t an evide ntiary heari ng based upon a f indi ng thatthe j udgment of co nvi cti on was faci all y val id. We note t hat t he fi fty (50) yearsentence imposed upon Peti ti oner i n 1987 has not yetexpire d. T he P etitione r raise s two (2) issu es in his ap pea l. He argues t hat the tr ial courterred by rul ing t he judgment of convi cti on was voi dable ratherthan void and that th e tr ial courter red by treating hi s writof habeas corpus as a peti ti on for po st-co nviction relief. W e fi nd no m erit in eith er o ne of th e A pp ella nt’s issu es, a nd a ffirm th e trial co urt.

Appell ant w as con victe d in the Cr im ina l Co urt o f Sh elb y C ou nty in 1987 forthe aggravated rape of a twelve ( 12) year ol d child. He fil ed a direct appeal from his co nviction to th is cou rt. On his di rectappeal, he did no t chall enge the suffi ciencyof t he evi denc e to sust ain t he convi cti on, butall eged reve rsib le error

caused by t he admissi on int o ev idence of “ot her cri mes” evi dence. This c ourt found no reversi ble er ror an d aff ir med the convi cti on. Sta te v. Jeff reyAll en Hudson , No. 12, Shel by County(Tenn. Cri m. App., Jackson, fi led November 16, 19 88). Su bseq uen tly, Appell ant f il ed a peti ti on for post- convi cti on rel iefin th e C rim in al Cou rt of Shel by County , attacki ng his c onvi cti on for agg rava ted ra pe. In hi s peti ti on for post-co nviction relief, he alleg ed ineffec tive assistance of co uns el du ring th e prio r proc eed ing. The tri al court di smissed t he peti ti on for po st-co nviction relief an d this c ourt a ffirme d. Je ffr ey A. H udso n v.-3-

Sta te , No. 02C 01-9 308 -CR -001 83, S helb y Co unty (Tenn. Cri m. App., Jackson, filed D ece m ber 7 , 199 4), perm . to appeal denied (Te nn. 1 995 ).

In his pet it ion f or wri t ofhabeas corp us fi led i n the Ci rcui t Courtof Bledsoe Co un ty, A pp ella nt d id not all ege that his sentence ha d e xpire d. H e d id all ege thatthe conv ict ion was void b ecause the Shelby County Courtlacke d jur isdi cti on to ent er t he judgmentbecause t he cri me “peti ti oner st ands convi cted of did n ot occur i n Shelby County, Tenne ssee, bu t in a ll actu ality o ccu rred in De soto C oun ty, Mississippi.” (Em pha sis in original).

Appell ant request s rel iefby wri t ofhabeas corpu s ba se d upon all egati ons that th e co nvicting cou rt in She lbyCounty l acked venue and jurisdic tion to h ear th e ca se. In Arch er v. State , 851 S .W .2d 15 7 (Te nn. 19 93), the court hel d:

Habeas cor pu s re lief is a vaila ble in T en ne sse e o nly wh en “it app ears upon the face o f the ju dgment or t he record of t he proceedi ngs upo n wh ich the judg m ent is re nde red” that a convi cti ng court was witho ut jurisd iction o r auth ority to se nten ce a defe nda nt, ortha t a d efe nd an t’s se nte nc e o f im pri son ment or ot her re straint has expi red. Archer , 851 S.W .2d a t 164
.

All that i s c o ntai ned in t he record on appeal in t his ca se is the Peti ti on forW ri t ofHabeas Corpus, wi thoutany attac hments t heret o, t he tr ial co urt’s orderdismis sing t he peti ti on , and th e A pp ella nt’s No tice of A pp ea l. Ho weve r, from the op inion of this co urt in th e d irec t ap pe al b y Ap pe llan t from his convi cti on, we note t hat he was c onvi cted f oll owing a j ury t ri al i n the Shel by-4-

Co unty Crim inal C ourt. W e mayt he r ef or e p r es ume tha t ven ue of th e o ffen se in ShelbyCounty was s ati sfact ori lyproven, and jur isdi cti on was also proven t hat t he cr i me had occurred in t he Stat e of Tennessee and not in Mis sissip pi. In Bomar v. State, ex re l. Stewart , 201 Tenn. 480, 300 S. W .2d 885 (1957) , a def endant pled guilty to ki dnapping, armed robbery, a nd grand l arceny in t he Crim inal Co urt of Mo ntgom ery County f or offenses whi ch were committ ed when the def endant was a juv en ile. T he re w as no he arin g in juve nile court to t ransf er t he case f or t he defendantto be tried a s an adu lt. H ow eve r, at the de fen da nt’s arra ign m en t in cri minal court , he i nfor med his attor ney, the di str ictatt orney, and th e trial court thathe wa s eig hte en (18) years of age. The defendantsubsequent lyfi led a peti ti on forwri t ofha beas corpus all eging t hat t he cri minal c ourtwas wit hout j uri sdi cti on to ent era j udg mentofcon vi ct i on w hen he w as n otan a dul t. He sp ec ifica llyalleg ed tha t the jud gm en ts w ere void on the ir fac e. T he tria l c ourt sustai ned the pet it ion afterheari ng the proof ofthe def endant’ s age att he t i me ofthe offenses. The Tennessee Supreme Court r eversed and denied the pet it ion forwri t ofhabeas corpu s. I n so doi ng, t hat court hel d: In the presentcase th e jur isdi cti on of t he crimina l court over S tewart depended, in so far a s pe rtine nt h ere , up on a ce rtain fac t, to-w it, his age. Th e T rial Co urt m ade inqu iry as to th at fa ct, and found t hat Stewa rt wa s eight een yearsold. This f indi ng was based upon Ste wa rt’s own stat ement to hi s Court a ppoint ed att orney and to the distr ictatto rne y. Su ch be ing the situa tion , the Co urt’s fi nding i n the matteris c onclusi ve on collate ral atta ck, a cco rding to the wei ght of autho rity. Bomar , 300 S. W .2d at889.

We con clud e tha t the o rigina l trial of A ppell ant wh ich led to h is convi cti on of aggravated rape necess ari lyincl uded a fi nding by t he tr ial courtand-5-

the jury th at v enue, and bynecessi ty j uri sdict ion, of t he off ense was ap pro pria tely in Sh elby C oun ty, Te nne sse e. T his iss ue is witho ut m erit.

In his ot her i ssue, Appel lantargues t hat the t ri al courterred by tre ati ng the peti ti on for habeas corpu s as a peti ti on for post- convi cti on rel iefand ther eby dism issing it due to bein g filed a fter the statu te of l imit ati ons had expi red.

The record it selfref lect s thatthis issu e is tota lly withou t me rit. In its order, the t ri al court f ound thatat most, the judgment of convi cti on was notvoi d, but voida ble, a nd th erefo re t he p eti ti on for wri t ofhabeas corpu s shoul d be denied. The tri al court merel y not ed thatithad author ity under Tennessee Code Annotat ed sec tion 4 0-30 -205 to tr eat t he habeas cor pus peti ti on as a peti ti on for post- conv ict ion relief unde r prope r circum stance s. How ever, the trial cou rt sp ec ifica llyfo und t hatitcoul d nottreatth e Ap pell ant’ s pe tition as one for po stconvi cti on relief be cau se it wa s no t f il ed wit hin t he stat ute ofli mitat ions per iod and it was n ot filed in the c ourt o f the co unty o f con viction.

Findi ng both ofAppell ant’ s iss ues to be wit hout meri t, we aff ir m the judg m ent o f the trial c ourt.-6- _ ____________________ ______________ _ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge