1



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

AT JAC KSON

STA NLE Y A DA MS v. WA RD EN, DA VID MILLS Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 5832 Joe H. Walker, Judge

No. W2004-00758-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 4, 2005

The Petitioner, Stanley

Adams, appe als the t rial court's denial 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 r elief pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has f ailed to allege any

g round that would rende r the judg ment of conviction void. Acc ording ly , we g rant the State' s motion and affirm the jud g me nt o f the low e r c ou rt
. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES a ndJ.C. M C LIN , J J ., joined. Stanley Adams, pro se

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Helena W al t o n Yar broug h, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On July 2, 19 91 , Pe tit ion e r e nte re d a g uil ty ple a to one c ou nt of a g g ra vate d r ob be ry , a

c la ss B f elony , and one c ount of second deg ree murder, a class A f elony . For

the offe nse of a g g ravated robbery , he wa s sentence d, as a ra n g e I standard of

fende r, to a fif

teen- y ear sentenc e in the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. F or

the mur de r c on vic tio n, he wa s se nte nc e d, a s a rang e I I I of fe nd e r, to a forty -five- y ear

sentenc e in the Depa

rtment of Correc tion. The sentenc es wer e order ed to be serve d2

concur rently . Petitioner subsequently soug ht post-conviction relief , alleg ing that trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive. The lowe r court denied re lief and this Court aff irmed. Se e Sta nle

y Ad am s v . S tate , No. 02C01-9208-CR-00184, 1993 WL 30622, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, F eb. 10, 1993), perm. to appeal denied , (Tenn. May 3, 1993). On Fe bruary

17, 2004, the Petitioner filed an a pplication for wri t of habe as cor pus relief , alleg ing that the judgme nts of conviction are void because he did not have the suffic ient number of prior fe lonies to justi fy an enhance d sentenc ing c lassification. In this reg ard, he also contends that his guilty pleas we re not knowing ly and volunt arily enter ed. By order enter ed F ebrua

ry 20, 2004, the trial court denied habea s corpus relief , finding that the judg ments of conviction we re not void. Pe tit ion e r t ime ly

fi le d a no tic e of app e a l do c ume nt. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting this Court to a ffirm the decision of the lowe r court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als. The State contends that the Petitioner has fa iled to alleg e a g round for which habe as cor

pus relief may be g rante d. The rig ht to seek habeas corpus relief is g uaranteed by article I , section 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution. Ro ge r L. Hi c k ma n v . S tate , — S

. W

. 3 d

— , 2 0 04 WL 2563267, * 1 (Tenn. 2004)

. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which ha beas c orpus re lief will be g rante d are narr ow. Id. (citations omitted). Relief will only be g rante d if the petition establishes that the cha lleng ed judg ment is void. Id. A judg ment is void “only when ‘[i ]t appea rs upon the face of the judg ment or the re cord of the proce eding s upon which the judgme nt is rende red’ that a convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority

to sentence a def

endant, or that a def

endant’ s sentence of imprisonment or other r estraint has expired.” Ro ge r L. Hi c k ma n v . S tate , – S

. W

. 3 d at

– , 2 0 0 4 W L 2 5 6 3 2 6 7 , * 1 (q u o t i n g State v. Ri tc hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted)). Unlike the post-conviction petition, the purpose of the habeas corpus petition is to contest a void, not merely voidable, judg ment. Sta te ex re l. Newsome v. He nderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). The pe titioner has the burde n of establishing either a void judg ment or an illeg al conf inement by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e. Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). I f the pe titioner car ries this burden, he is entitled to im mediate r elea se. Id. Howeve r, if the ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionfails to d e mon str a te th at th e jud g me nt i s v oidor tha t th e c on fi ne me nt i s illega l, neither a

ppointment of counsel nor an evidentiary hearing is re quired a nd the trial court may properly dismiss the petition. Ro ge r L. Hi c k ma n v . S tate , – S.W

. 3 d at

– , 2 004 WL 2563267, *1 (c iti ng Te nn . Co deAn n. § 2 9- 21 -1 09 (2 00 0) ; Dixon v. H olland , 70 S.W .3d 33, 36 (Tenn. 2002 )); Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

.
Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t his se nte nc e s a reill e g a l a ndthi s h is g uil ty ple a s w e reno t kn ow ing ly and voluntarily

enter ed. The rec ord re veals that the Petitioner r ece ived a se ntence of fifte en y ear s a s a rang e I of fe nd e r f or his c on vic tio n f

or a g g ra vate d r ob be ry . Th is s e nte nc e is d e sig nate d a “ hy brid se nte nc e ” a s h e re c e ive d a rang e I I sen ten ce of a c la ss B fe lon y wi th a rang e I of fe nd e r r e le a se elig ibilit y . See, e .g. , Ton y Ho pk ins v . S tate , No. E2003-01691- CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL2378248,3

* 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, Oct. 25, 2004). The rec ord further indicates that the Petitioner rec eived a

rang e I I I , forty -five y ear sentenc e for second deg ree murder, a cla ss A felony . Petitioner asserts that he does not pos sess the requisite prior convictions to be classifie d a rang e I I I offe nder. Acc ording ly , he asse rts that the judg ments ag ainst him are void.
These a lleg ations, even if tr ue, fail to afford the Petitioner with a valid g round for habea s c or pu s r e lie f. Of

fe nd e r c la ssi fi c a tio ns a ndre le a se e lig ibi lit y " areno n- jurisd ic tio na l a ndle g iti ma te bargai ni ng to ol s i n p leanegot iat io ns un der t he C ri mi nal S ent enci ng Re for m A ct o f 19 89 ." Bland v. Du k e s, 9 7 S

. W

. 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 4 (T en n . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g McConnell v. State, 12 S.W .3d 795, 798 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; Hicks v . State, 94 5 S.W.2 d 706 , 709 (T e nn . 1 99 7) ). Mo re ov e r, ou r s up re me c ou rt he ld in Hicks that hy

brid sentenc es ar e permissibl e bec ause " a knowing and voluntary g uiltyplea waives anyirregul ari tyas t o o ffen de r c l a s s i f i cat io n o r rel ease eli gibi li ty ." Hi c k s, 945 S.W .2d at 709. Additionally , the Petitioner’s cla ims rel at i ng to an unknowing and involuntary g uiltyplea a

re not cog nizable in a habea s corpus a ction beca use, eve n if true, the judg ment would not be rendere d void, but me re l y v o i dable. See B ryan Pearson v . State, N o . E 2 0 0 3

- 0 2 5 9 7

- CC A

- R3

- CD , 2 0 0 4 WL 1606982, * 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, J ul. 16, 2004) , perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. N ov. 8, 2004).
Acc ording ly , it is ordered that the State’s motion is g rante d. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirme d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE