### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 9, 200 5
MIC HAE L KEITH KEN NED Y v. KEV IN M YER S, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Wayne County

No. 13403 Robert

L. Jones, Jud ge

No. M2004- 01722-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Jul y 26, 2005

Th e pe tit ion e r, Mic ha e l Ke ith Ke nn e dy , en te re d ple a s o f n olo c on te nd e re in C he ste r C ou nty a ndin Henderso n C o u n t y

t o aggr av at ed b u rgl ar y , p o s s es s i o n o f m ar i j u an a, an d n u merous counts of burg lary of an automobile, theft, and vanda lism. The petitioner rec eived a total ef fec tive sentenc e of f

ifteen y ear s incarc eration in the Tennessee Depa rtment of C orre ction. Subsequently , the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court summarily denied the pe tition, and the petitioner a

ppeals the de nial. Upon our revie w of the re cord and the parties’ brief s, we a ffirm the judg ment of the ha

beas c orpus court.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich J OS EP H M. T I PTON and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

Michae l Keith Kenne dy , Clifton, Tennessee , Pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporte r; Richard H. D unavant, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and T. Mic hael B ottoms, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

On Dec ember

4, 2001, the petitioner e ntere d a p l ea o f n olo contender e to one c ount of
a g g r a v a te d b u r g la

ry , a Cl a s s C f e lo n y , a n d o n e c o u n t o f

th e f t o f p r o p e r ty v a lu e d le s s th an $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The petitioner was sente nced a s a per sistent offende r to fiftee n y ear s for the ag g ravated burg lary

convi ct i o n and ele ven months and twenty -nine day s for the the ft conviction, with the sentenc es to be served conc urre ntly . These c harg es orig inated in Chester County

. Also on Dec ember

4, 2001, the appellant pled nolo c ontender e to the following Hende rson Cou nty of

fe ns e s: thr e e c ou nts of

the ft of pr op e rty va lue d b e tw e e n $ 1, 00 0 a nd$1 0, 00 0, a Cla ss D-2-

fe lon y ; f ive c ou nts of bu rg lary of a n au tom ob ile , a Clas s E fe lon y ; two co un ts of the ft of pr op e rt y valued be tween $500 and $1,000, a Class E fe lony ; vandalism of prope rty valued be tween $500 and $1 ,0 00 , a Cla ss Efe lon y ; tw o c ou nts of the ft of pr op e rty va lue d le ss tha n $ 50 0, a Cla ss A misdemeanor; two c ounts of vandalism of property valued less than $500, a Cl ass A misdemea nor; and one c ount of possession of a Schedule I V controlled substanc e, a Class A misdemeanor. The appellant r ece ived a se ntence of twelve y ear s for each of his Class D fe lony convictions, a sente nce o f s i x ye ar s f

o r e a c h o f h i s C l a s s E f

e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s , a n d a

s e n t e n c e o f

e l e v e n m o n t h s a n d t w e n t ynine day s for e ach of

his misdemeanor c onvictions. Additionally , the trial co u rt o rdered the appellant to pay

restitution in connec tion with his bur g lary of an automobile convictions. The trial court orde red that the Hende rson County sentenc es we re to be serve d concur rently with eac h other and with the Chester

Countysentenc es for

a total ef fec tive sentenc e of f

ifteen y ear s.
Th e pe tit ion e r r e se rv e d a

c e rt if ie d q ue sti on of

la w i n c on ne c tio n w ith his ple a . O n a pp e a l, this court conclude d that we did not have jurisdiction as to three of the Hende rson County offe nses beca use the que stion was not dispositi ve as to those of fense s. See State v. Michae l Kennedy , No. W2001-03107-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL402798, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, F eb. 21, 2003). This court af

firmed the r emainder

of the a ppellant’s convic tions. I d.

There afte r, the pe titioner pursued both post-convic tion and habea s corpus re lief. This court determined that the petitioner’s notice of appeal was not timely filed i n connec tion with his habea s corpus c ase, and we dismissed his appea l. See Michae l K. Kenne dy v
. S t at e, No. W 2004-00178- CCA -R 3- HC , 2 00 5 WL

33 13 67 , at *1 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. a t Jac ks on , F e b. 11 , 20 05 ). I n h is p os tconviction ca se, this court remanded certa in issues for an evidentiary hearing and determined that the petitioner wa s not entitled to relief on the remainder of his issues. See Micha el Keith Ke nnedy v. State, No. W2003-02824-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 W L 645164 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Ma r. 16, 2005). Subsequently , the petitioner filed in the Wayne C ounty Circuit Court the instant petiti on for habea s corpus re lief from his convictions for burg lary of an automobile, alleg ing that the trial court
wa s w ith ou t the auth ority to i mpo se re sti tut ionin c on jun c tio n w ithhis se nte nc e of c on fi ne me nt. Additionally , the petitioner c omplains that his con v i ct i o n s and sentences f or burg lary

of an
auto mob ile we re vo id b e c aus e the ind ic tme nts faile d to a lle g e that th e vic tim s su ff e re d f inanc ia l lo ss. The ha beas c orpus court summarily dismiss ed the petition f or habe as cor

pus relief , and the pe titioner
no w a pp e a ls.

II. Ana lys is

I nitially , we note that the determination of whether to g rant habea s corpus re lief is a question of la w. Mc L a ne y

v. B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001). As such, we will revie w t he trial c ourt’s finding s de novo without a presumption of correc tness. I d. Moreove r, it is the petitioner’s burde n to demonstrate, by

a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e, “that the sentenc e is v o i d or that the
c on fi ne me nt i s il le g a l.” Wy a tt v . St a te , 24 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). Further, a trial court may pr op e rl y su mma ri ly dis mis s a pe tit ionfo r h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f f

or failu re to state a c og niza

ble c la im.-3-

Passere lla v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. Article I , § 15 of the Tenne ssee Constit ution g uarantees an acc used the rig ht to seek ha beas corpus r elief. See Tay lor v. State , 99 5 S. W.2 d 7 8, 83 (T e nn . 1 99 9) . H ow e ve r, “[ s] uch re lie f i s available only

when it appe ars from the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proc eeding s that a trial c ourt was without jurisdiction to sentence a def endant o r t hat a de fendant’s sentenc e of imp ri so nme nt o r o the r re str a int ha s e xpir e d. ” Wy a tt

, 24 S.W .3d at 322; see a lso Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 ( 2000). I n other wor ds, habea s corpus rel i ef may be soug ht only

when the judg ment is void, not m ere ly

voidable. Tay lor

, 995 S.W .2d at 83

. “A v o i d judgme nt ‘is one in which the judgme nt is facially

invalid because the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judg ment
or be c aus e the de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d. ’ We ha ve re c og nize d th a t a sen te nc e imp os e d in direc t c ontrave ntion of a statute, for example, is void and illega l.” Stephenson v. Carlton , 28 S.W .3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted).

Th e pe tit ion e r c ite s State v. Da vis , 9 40 S.W. 2d55 8, 56 2 (T enn

. 19 97 ), to s up po rt his contention that the trial c ourt was not authorized to impose re stitut ion as part of a sente nce involving confine ment. I n Davis, our supreme court conclude d that at the time de fendant Davis was se ntence d, the trial court was without the authority to i m p o s e a s entenc e including both restitution and confine ment. I d. Howeve r, the Da vis court noted that, ef fec tive J uly 1, 1996, afte r the sente ncing of Da vis , o ur

le g isl a tur e a me nd e d T e nn e ssee Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 04 (c )( 2) to p e rm it restitution in conjunction wi t h a sentenc e involving c onfinement. I d. at 561 n.6. The pe titioner insists that, reg ardle ss of the 1996 amendment to Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 40-35- 10 4( c )( 2) , th e tr ia l c ou rt

wa s n e ve rthe le ss w ith ou t auth ority to i mpose res tituti on a lon g wi th h is
se nte nc e of

c on fi ne me nt. Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -1 04 (1 99 6) pr ov ide s: (C ) T he fo llo wi ng se nte nc ing a lte rna tiv e s in a ny app ro pria te combination ar e au thorized for def endants other wise elig ible under this chapter:

. . . .

(2 ) Pa y me nt o f r e sti tut ionto the vic tim or vic tim s e ith e r a lon e or

in addition to any

other sente nce a

uthorized by

this subsection;

. . . . (8) A se ntence of continuous conf inement in the dep ar t m en t if the conviction is for a felony and the sentenc e is at le ast one (1) y ear

. . .

.
Be cause the petitioner’s of fense s occur

red in August 2000, the 1996 a mendment authorizing the s entenc es i mposed by the t rial court, namely restitution combined with confinement, had be en-4-

in e ff e c t f or so me tim e

. Ac c or din g ly , the pe tit ion e r is no t e nti tle d to re lie f on thi s iss ue

. Se e Ed wi n Matthew B ry ant v. Flora J . Holland, Warden, N o. M2003-02838-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 839294, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Na shville, Apr. 7, 2005); State v. De laney E. Marc um, No. M2001-02257-CCA -R 3 -C D, 2002 WL 1585641, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Jul y 18, 2002). The pe titio n er al s o complains that his convictions and sentenc es for burg lary of an
auto mob ile we re vo id b e c aus e the ind ic tme nts faile d to a lle g e that th e vic tim s su ff e re d f inanc ia l lo ss. Gene rally , the suffic iency of an indictment is not a prope r subject f or habe as cor

p u s re v i ew

. See Ha g g ardv. State , 4 75 S.W. 2d 18 6, 18 7 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 71 ). “ Ho we ve r, if a n in dic tme nt f

a ils to s ta te a n o ff

e ns e , th e su bs e qu e nt c on vic tio n o n the de fe c tiv e ind ic tme nt is void be c aus e no c ri me is be fore the court and beca use the court lacks jurisdiction.” Arzolia Charles Goines v. Warde n Glen Turner , No. W2003-02281-CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL 2113042, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Sept. 22, 2004). Acc ording ly , if the i n d i ctm ent does not prope rly char g e an of

fense , there by depriving the convicting court of jurisdiction, “that indictment may be challeng ed in a habea s corpus proce eding .” I d.

The statute de fining burg lary of a n au t o mobile does not provide that the a mount of the property taken is an element of that of fense . See Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-14- 402(a) (4) ( 1997). Ac c or din g ly , it wa s no t ne c e ssa ry fo r the a mou nt of pr op e rty take n to be a lle g e d inthe ind ic tme nts char g ing the appellant with burg lary of an automobile. Thus, the indictments in thi s case wer e not void. There fore , the petitioner is not entitled to relief on this issue. Finally , the petiti o n er h as raised a dditional issues relating to the imposit ion of restitution. Howeve r, our r eview r evea ls that none of the r emaining issues rende r his convictions or sentenc es void. Notably , the re mainder of the issues raise d by

the petit ioner are properly the subject of a direc t appea l. See Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-30-106( g ) (2003) (“A g round for relief is waived if the pe titioner persona lly

or throug h an at t o rn eyfailed to pre sent it for dete rmination in any proce eding befor e a court of c ompetent jurisdiction in which the g round could ha ve bee n prese nted.”) . Acc ording ly , the petitioner is not entitled to relief.

III. Conclusi on

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e af firm the judg ment of the ha beas c orpus court.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE