### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 5, 200 5 QUI NTON G. ST EWART v. RI CKY BEL L, WARDEN

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 3568 Cheryl Blackburn, Ju dge

No. M2004- 02667-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Jun e 27, 2005

Th e pe tit ion e r a

pp e a ls f ro m th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s dis mis sa l of his pro s e pe tit ion fo r writ of ha be a s c or pu s. Following our re view, we aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.
Quinton G. Stewart, Riverbe nd Maxi mum Security I nstitut ion, Nashville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Richard H. Dunava n t , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Victor S. Johnson, I I I ., Di s t ri ct Attorney Gene ral; and B ret Gunn, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION
On Aug ust 11, 1999, the petitioner, pled g uilty as an adult to se cond deg ree murder and was sentenc ed to twenty -five y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction as a violent offende r. On Septembe r 27, 2004, the petitioner filed a pro s e pet i t i o n for writ of habea s corpus, whic h the trial court summarily

dismiss ed.
The pe titioner now appea ls the trial court’s dismiss al. The petitioner first ar g ues that he w as on ly sixte e n y e ars old(a

min or ) a t th e tim e he wa s c ha

rg e d f or the of fe ns e . H e c on te nd s th a t, a s a minor, the ju v enile court was re quired by law to find “r easona

ble g rounds” at a transf

er he aring befor e tra nsfer

ring him to criminal court. The petitioner alleg es that the only finding marke d on the fac e of th e tr a n s f

e r o r d e r w a s th e ju d g e ’ s n o tati o n “ Wa iv e d b y th e D e f e n d a n t. ” T h e p e titioner maintains that his conviction and sentenc e are void beca use the juvenile c ourt reta ined jurisdiction
a ndthe c ri min a l c ou rt

ha d n o ju ri sd ic tio n to c on vic t a ndse nte nc e him

.-2-

Article I , section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution guar antee s the rig ht to seek habe as cor pus relief

. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 29-21-101 et seq. codifies the a pplicable pr ocedur es for seeking a writ. The g rounds upon which a w rit of habe as cor pus may be issued ar e very

narr ow. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001). A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only when it appear s on the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proce eding s upon which the judg ment was rende red that a court was without jurisdiction to c onvict or sentenc e the defe nd an t o r t h at the defe ndant i s still imprisoned despite the e x piration of his sentenc e. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pott s v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . The purpose of a habea s corpus pe tit ion is t o c on te st v oida ndno t me re ly vo ida ble jud g me nts

. Ar c he r, 85 1 S. W.2 d at 16 3. A v oid jud g me nt i s a fa c ia lly inv a lidjud g me nt, c le arl y sh ow ing that a

c ou rt didno t ha ve statut ory

a uth ority to rende r such judgment; wherea s, a voidable judgment i s fac ially valid, requiring proof bey ond the fac e of the rec ord or judg ment to establish its i nvalidity . See Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn.1999) . The burde n is on the petitioner to e stablish, by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e, “that the sentenc e is void or that the confine ment is illeg al.” Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). More over, it is permissible for a trial court to summarily

dismiss a petition for ha

beas c orpus relief , without the appointment of counsel and without an evidentiary hearing, if the petitioner doe s not state a c og nizable claim. See Hickma n v. State, 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004)

.
Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d sect ion 37 -1 -1 34 (a ) p ro vid e s f or the tr a ns fe r o f a

juv e nil e to
c ri min a l c ou rt

. B e fo re a juv e nil e ma y be tr ie d a s a n a du lt in a c ri min a l c ou rt , a

juv e nil e c ou rt

mus t conduct a transfe r hea

ring and must find, int e r a lia , r e a s o n ab l e g r o u n d s t o b e l i e v e t h a t “ the c hil d committed the delinquent ac t as alleg ed.” T enn. Code An n

. § 37-1-134( a)( 4)(A) . Following an eff ective tr an s fe r, j u ri sdiction over the c ase is veste d in the criminal or c ircuit court. I d. § 37 -1 -1 34 (c ). Th e tr a ns fe r s ta tut e pr ov ide s that the juv e nil e c ou rt ' s ju ri sd ic tio n is te rm inate d “ wi th respe ct to any

and all delinquent acts with w hich the child may then or there afte r be char g ed, and the child shall there afte r be dealt with as a n adult as to all pending and subseque nt criminal cha rg es.” I d. § 37-1-134( c).
Although the rig ht to a transfe r hea ring is sufficiently

fundame ntal to constitute a matter of due proc ess, t h e ab s en ce of a valid tra nsfer

order is a proce dural de ficienc y not a jurisdictional defe ct. See Sawy ers v. State, 814 S.W.2d 725, 729 (Tenn. 1991). Even the la ck of a valid transfe r hearing doe s not affe ct the criminal court’s jurisdiction over a juvenile in most instances, a nd is not a cog niz ab l e claim i n a petition for ha beas c orpus. See Albe rt J ones v. State, No. 01C01-9708-CR-00317, 1999 WL 482406, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App

. , at Nashville, July9, 1999), pe rm . a pp . d e nie d ( Te nn . N ov . 2 2, 19 99 ). F urthe rm or e , a juv e nil e de fe nd a nt c a n w a ive his ri g ht t o a tra nsfer hearing. State v. H ale, 833 S.W.2d 65, 67-68 (Tenn. 1992)

.
I n the pre sent ca se, a transfe r order exis ts w hich re flec ts complete adjudication of the transfe r issue. The tra nsfer

order is marked “ Boundove r to the C i rc u i t Court to stand trial as an a dult.” Writt en beside the marke d lang uag e is the notation “Waived by the Def endant.” The tra nsfer

order i s p r o p e r l y s i g n e d a n d d a t e d

. T h e c l a i m e d d e f e c t d o e s n o tap p e ar

o n t h e f a c e o f t h e o r d e r

. C l e ar l y, the Rutherfor d CountyC i rc uit Court had authority and jurisdiction to convict and se ntence the pe tit ion e r. Mo re ov e r, a s in dic a te d, the pe tit ion e r’ s c la ime d d e fe c t, e ve n if true , d oe s n ot c on sti tut e-3-

a jurisd ic tio na l de fe c t. T he re fo re , the pe tit ion e r pr e se nts a vo ida ble c la im, wh ic h is no t c og niza ble in a petition for writ of habea s corpus. The pe titioner also relies on Bl akely v. Washington, 542 U.S. --- -, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), to arg ue that his sentenc e is illega l beca use t he trial court applied enhanc ement fa ctors base d upon fa c ts n ot f ou ndby a jury or a dmi tte d b y

the pe tit ion e r. Ac c or din g ly , the pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t hi s s en t en ce pursuant to Tenne ssee statute violate s his right to trial by jury and is there fore unconstitutional and void.

Th e pe tit ion e r’ s r e lia nc e on B lake ly a nda c c omp a nying arg ume nt f a ils in m a ny

re sp e c ts. First, this Court has previously determined that even if a Blakely violation occurr ed at the time of
c on vi cti on and sen ten cin g, su ch a v io lat io n wo ul d ren der t he j ud gment vo id abl e, an d n otvo id , u nle ss the fa ce of

the re cord e stablished that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e th e p e ti ti o n e r

. Se e St a n le y H ar v e ll v

. G le n Turn e r , N o

. W2 0 0 4

- 0 2 6 4 3

- CC A

- R3

- H C, 2 0 0 5 WL 83 98 91 , at *2 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. ,at Jac ks on , Ap ri l 12 , 20 05 ); Ea rl Da vid Cr a wf

or d v . Ri c ky

B e ll, No. M2004-02440-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 354106, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Na shville, Feb. 15, 2 0 0 5 )

. Se c o n d , o u r s u p r e me c o u r t h a s h e ld th a t B la k e ly d o e s n o t a n n o u n c e a n e w rule of la w or imp a c t th e va lid ity

of ou r s ta tut ory

se nte nc ing s c he me . St a te v. Ed wi n G ome z an d Jon a than S. L ondono, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD, --- S.W .3d --- -, 2005 WL 8568 4 8, at *11, 22 (Te nn. April, 15 , 2 0 05), petition to rehea r denie d (Tenn. May

18, 2005). I n addition, our supreme court has indicate d that Blakely issues are not subje ct to r etroa ctive application. I d. at *13, n.16. Where the alleg ations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the j udg ment is void, a trial c ourt may

corr ectly dismiss the petition without a hearing. H ickman, 153 S.W.3d at 20.
The pe titioner has not pr esente d a cog nizable claim entitling him to habea s corpus re lief. He has demonstrated neither a fa cially

invalid judgment nor

an expired sentenc e. Ac cording ly , the judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE