1

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

STANLEY ADAMS v. WARDEN, DAVID MILLS

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County

No. 5832 Joe H. Walker, Judge

No. W2004-00758-CCA-R3-HC - Filed March 4, 2005

The Petitioner, Stanley Adams, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief.

The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant

to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that

would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm

the judgment of the lower court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the

Court of Criminal Appeals

ALAN E. GLENN,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID G. HAYES and J.C. MCLIN,

JJ., joined.

Stanley Adams, pro se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Helena Walton Yarbrough, Assistant Attorney

General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 2, 1991, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated robbery, a class

B felony, and one count of second degree murder, a class A felony. For the offense of aggravated

robbery, he was sentenced, as a range I standard offender, to a fifteen-year sentence in the

Department of Correction. For the murder conviction, he was sentenced, as a range III offender, to

a forty-five-year sentence in the Department of Correction. The sentences were ordered to be served
2

concurrently. Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel was

ineffective. The lower court denied relief and this Court affirmed. See Stanley Adams v. State, No.

02C01-9208-CR-00184, 1993 WL 30622, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 10, 1993), perm.

to appeal denied, (Tenn. May 3, 1993). 

On February 17, 2004, the Petitioner filed an application for writ of habeas corpus relief,

alleging that the judgments of conviction are void because he did not have the sufficient number of

prior felonies to justify an enhanced sentencing classification. In this regard, he also contends that

his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. By order entered February 20, 2004,

the trial court denied habeas corpus relief, finding that the judgments of conviction were not void.

Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal document.

The State has filed a motion requesting this Court to affirm the decision of the lower court

pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The State contends that the

Petitioner has failed to allege a ground for which habeas corpus relief may be granted.

The right to seek habeas corpus relief is guaranteed by article I, section 15 of the Tennessee

Constitution. Roger L. Hickman v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2004 WL 2563267, * 1 (Tenn. 2004).

However, the grounds upon which habeas corpus relief will be granted are narrow. Id. (citations

omitted). Relief will only be granted if the petition establishes that the challenged judgment is void.

Id. A judgment is void “only when ‘[i]t appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of the

proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered’ that a convicting court was without jurisdiction

or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant’s sentence of imprisonment or other restraint

has expired.” Roger L. Hickman v. State, – S.W.3d at –, 2004 WL 2563267, *1 (quoting State v.

Ritchie, 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, judgment. State

ex rel. Newsome v. Henderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). 

The petitioner has the burden of establishing either a void judgment or an illegal confinement

by a preponderance of the evidence. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1994). If the petitioner carries this burden, he is entitled to immediate release. Id. However, if the

habeas corpus petition fails to demonstrate that the judgment is void or that the confinement is

illegal, neither appointment of counsel nor an evidentiary hearing is required and the trial court may

properly dismiss the petition. Roger L. Hickman v. State, – S.W.3d at –, 2004 WL 2563267, *1

(citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 (2000); Dixon v. Holland, 70 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tenn. 2002));

Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). 

Petitioner contends that his sentences are illegal and this his guilty pleas were not knowingly

and voluntarily entered. The record reveals that the Petitioner received a sentence of fifteen years

as a range I offender for his conviction for aggravated robbery. This sentence is designated a “hybrid

sentence” as he received a range II sentence of a class B felony with a range I offender release

eligibility. See, e.g., Tony Hopkins v. State, No. E2003-01691-CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL 2378248,
3

* 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Oct. 25, 2004). The record further indicates that the Petitioner

received a range III, forty-five year sentence for second degree murder, a class A felony. Petitioner

asserts that he does not possess the requisite prior convictions to be classified a range III offender.

Accordingly, he asserts that the judgments against him are void. 

These allegations, even if true, fail to afford the Petitioner with a valid ground for habeas

corpus relief. Offender classifications and release eligibility "are non-jurisdictional and legitimate

bargaining tools in plea negotiations under the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989." Bland v.

Dukes, 97 S.W.3d 133, 134 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (citing McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795, 798

(Tenn. 2000); Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997)). Moreover, our supreme court held

in Hicks that hybrid sentences are permissible because "a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives

any irregularity as to offender classification or release eligibility." Hicks, 945 S.W.2d at 709.

Additionally, the Petitioner’s claims relating to an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea are not

cognizable in a habeas corpus action because, even if true, the judgment would not be rendered void,

but merely voidable. See Bryan Pearson v. State, No. E2003-02597-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL

1606982, * 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jul. 16, 2004), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Nov.

8, 2004). 

Accordingly, it is ordered that the State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court

is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

___________________________________ 

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE