### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 7, 200 4
CLA REN CE WAS HINGT ON V. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 5790 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2003-03033-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 18, 2005

Petitioner, Clarenc e Wash i n gt o n, appea ls the trial court’s de nial of his petition for writ of ha beas c or pu s c hal len g ing the le g a lit y of his se nte nc e fo r h is c on vic tio n o f the of fe ns e of e sc ape fr om a penitentiary . After

a re view o f t h e record, we aff irm the trial court’s dismiss al of Petitioner’s pe tit ionfo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed
T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the o p i n i o n o f t he court, in which D AVI D H. W ELLES and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
Clarenc e Washing ton, Henning , Tenne ssee, pro s e . Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Da vidE. Coe ne n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorne y Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
I n 1982, Petitioner was convicted in c ase no. 78190 in the Shelby CountyCriminal Court of assault with the intent to commit robbery , and was sentenc ed to f ive to ten y ear s in the Tennesse e Depa rtment of Corre ction. His conviction was uphe ld on appea l. State v. W ashington , 658 S.W .2d 14 4 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 83 ). I n 1 98 3, Pe tit ion e r ple a d g uil ty in c a se no s. B 86 35 0 a ndB 86 35 1 in the Shelby

County Criminal Court to two counts of robbery with a deadly wea pon and wa s sentence d to ten y ear s for e ach of

fense . Petitioner was found to be a habitual offende r, and his ten- y ear se nte nc e s in c a se no s. B 86 35 0 and B86351 w e re e nh a nc e d to tw o li fe se nte nc e s p ur su a nt t o Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-1-806 (re peale d 1989). The trial court orde red the two life sentenc es to be served concur re n t l y t o eac h other, a nd consec utively to his sentence in c ase no. 78190. This Court affirme d Petitio ner’ s convictions on direc t appea l. Cla re nc e W as hin gto n v . S tate , C.C.A. No. 23, Shelby

County(Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, F eb. 6, 1985).-2-

Petitioner esca

ped fr om the L ake Cou nty Reg ional Prison on J anuar y 25, 1984, and wa s returne d to c ustody the following day

. L ater in 1984, Petitioner pled g uiltyto the offe nse of e scape from a pe ni t en t i ar y in case no. 5840 in the L ake County circ uit court, and wa s sentence d to two y ear s. As in effe ct at the time of Petitioner’ s co n v i ct ion, a def endant c onvicted of the offe nse of esca pe fr om a penitentiary

was to be “ punished by

imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of one (1) to five (5) y ear s to commence from and afte r the expiration of theorig inal term.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 39 -5 -7 0 2 (re peale d 1989). The e scape occur red w hile Petitioner was serving his sente nce in case no. 78190, but before his sentence s in case nos. B 86350 and B 86351 commence d. The trial c ou rt or de re d Pe tit ion e r t o serve his se nte nc e in ca se no . 584 0 co ns e c uti ve ly to his se nte nc e in c a se no. 78190, without mentioning Petitioner’s sentenc es in ca se nos. B 86350 and B 86351.
At so me po int , the De pa

rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n n oti fi e d Pe tit ion e r that th e se nte nc e fo r h is e sc ape c on vic tio n wa s sch e du le d to be se rv e d co ns e c uti ve ly to a ll o f h is p ri or un e xpir e d s e nte nc e s, inc lud ing his c on c ur

re nt l if e se nte nc e s in c a se no s. B 86 35 0 a ndB 86 35 1. Pe tit ion e r filed a pr o s e petition for dec laratory

judgme nt in the Davidson County Chance ry Court in 2001 seeking revie w of his sentenc e ca lculation and par ole elig ibilit y status. Petiti oner contended that his escape sentenc e should be serve d conse cu t i v el y t o his sentence in case no. 78190 and conc urre ntly to his li fe sentenc es in ca se nos. B 86350 and B 86351.
I n denying Petitioner’ s petition, the chanc ery court found that the Depa rtment of Corre ction had prope rly

schedule d Petitioner’s esca pe sente nce to be serve d consec utively to all unexpi red sentenc es at the time the offense was c ommitt ed pursua nt to Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 39- 5-702 (r epea led 1989) an d R u l e 3 2 of the Te nnessee Rules of Criminal Procedure . Thus, the chanc ery court c oncluded that the ear liest possible time for the esc ape se ntence to commence was afte r the conclusion of P etitioner’s li fe sentence s. Although Petiti oner appea led other a spects of the chanc ery court’s r uling, he did n o t ap p ea l the cha ncery court’s f indings a s to the proper

order of service of his sentenc es. See W ashington v. Tennessee Departme nt of Corr ection , No. M 2002- 12651-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 309359, *4 (Tenn. Ct. App., F eb. 8, 2005).
Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for a writ of habea s corpus in the c ircuit court f or L auder dale County

in 2003. The trial c ourt denied Petitioner’ s petition because it failed to state a claim for which habeas corpus relief is appropriate. On appeal, Petitioner a rg ues, on the one hand, that th e c ha nc e ry c ou rt ’s de c isi on su pp orts h is a rg ume nt that hi s n e g oti a te d p le a a g re e me nt f

or his esca pe conviction was void beca use i t failed to mention his unserve d life sentences. P etitioner asks this Court t o set aside his plea ag ree ment and permit him to withdraw h i s gu i l t y plea in ca se no. 5840. On the other

hand, assuming that his plea agr eeme nt in case no. 5840 is valid, Petitioner arg ues that he should serve his esca pe sentenc e consec utively to his sentenc e in c ase no. 78190 and concur rently with his li fe se ntence s. Under this sce nario, Petitioner contends that his sentence for case no. 5840 has expired. The g rounds upon which a writ of habe as cor

pus may be issued ar e very narr ow. McLaney v . B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001). A writ of habeas corpus is available only when it appe ars fr om the fa c e of

the jud g me nt o r r e c or d th a t e ith e r the c on vic tin g c ou rt wa s wi tho ut j urisd ic tio n to-3-

convict o r s entence the Petitioner, or the Petitioner’s sentenc e has e x pired. Arc he r v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). “[W ]here the alleg ations in a petition f or writ of habe as cor

pus do no t de mon str a te that th e jud g me nt i s v oid , a tria l cou rt ma y c or re c tly dis mis s th e pe tit ionwi tho ut a hearing.” McLaney , 59 S.W .3d at 93. The Petitioner h as the burde n of showing that his or her se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d b y

a pr e po nd e ranc e of

the e vid e nc e . T e nn . Co de An n. § 2 9- 21 -1 01 . B e c aus e the determination of whether habea s corpus re lief should be g rante d is a question of law, our re view is de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Ha rt v . S tate , 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)

. Although Petiti oner relies on both McLaneyand State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W .2d 871 (Tenn. 19 78 ) i n s up po rt

of his po sit ion that his 19 84 se nte nc ing jud g me nt i s v oid , n e ith e r c a se is a pp lic able to the case sub judice

. Both case s question the leg ality of a trial court’s o rd er o f c oncurr ent sentenc ing when consecutive sente ncing is mandated by rule or statute. See Bu rk

ha rt , 566 S.W .2d at 872 (The defe ndant pled g uiltyto an esca pe char g e on the condition that his escape sentenc e run concur rently with the term of the origina l offense in dir ec t contrave ntion of the statute mandating c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s) ; McLaney , 59 S.W .3d at 94 (The order of conc urre nt sentencing is void if the defe ndant was on bail at the time he committed the offe nses).
I n the prese nt c ase, Petitioner was serving his se ntence in case no. 78190 when he esca ped fr om c us tod y . Pu rs ua nt t o th e statut e e xistin g a t th e tim e of the of fe ns e , th e tr ia l cou rt

c or re c tly order ed Petitioner to serve his two-y ear sent en ce for esc ape c onsecutively to case no. 78190, the sentenc e for

whi ch h e was being he ld at the time of his esca pe. Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-5- 702 (r e pe a le d 1 98 9) ; Ru c k e r v . S tate , 5 56 S.W. 2d 77 4, 77 6 (T e nn . Crim . App . 197 7)

. I f a d e fe nd a nt i s se n te n c e d f

o r th e o f f e n s e o f e s c ap e a n d h a s a d d it io n a l u n s e r v e d s e n te n c e s , th e s e n te n c e f o r the esca pe off ense sha ll be serve d consec utively to the unexpired s en t en ce s, “whe ther the judg ment expli citly order s or not.” Te nn. R. Crim. P . 32. Acc ording ly , the fa ce of Petitioner’s 1984 judg ment of sentenc ing doe s not indicate t hat hi s sentenc e is illega l or t hat the trial c ourt lacke d the jurisdiction to sentence Petitioner. Claims of an involuntary or unknowing guilty plea would render a convic tion voidable, not void, and thus are properly addre ssed in the post-conviction for um. Se e Cox

v . S tate , 53 S.W

. 3 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 1

- 2 9 3 ( T e n n
. Crim

. A p p
. 2 0 0 1 )

. Pe ti ti o n e r h a s n o t s tate d a

c laim f o r w h ic h habea s corpus re lief is available

. As for Petitioner’ s alternative arg ument that his two-y ear sentenc e for his escape conviction ha s e xpir e d a ssu min g that the 19 84 jud g me nt is valid , Pe tit ion e r ha s a lr e a dy lit ig a te d th is c la im i n a d iffer ent forum, a nd the issue has be en dete rmined adve rsely to him. Although Petitioner str e nu ou sly

arg ue s th a t he didno t r a ise thi s is su e in the c hanc e ry c ou rt , w e re sp e c tf

ull y dis a g re e wi th the c ha ra c te ri zat ionof

his arg ume nt.
We also observe that althoug h Petitioner signe d his pe t i t i o n for habeas c orpus re lief and attache d an af

fidavit, the af

fidavit was not verified as r equire d by Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-107( a). The proce dural re quirements for pursuing a

w rit o f h a b e as cor pus are mandatory , “and must be followed scr

upulously .” Archer , 8 5 1 S

. W

. 2 d at1 6 5 , (c i t i n g Ba te ma n v . S tate , 194 S.W .2d 336, 337 (Tenn. 1946)

.-4-

Ba sed on the for eg oing, we find that Petitioner has not stated a claim for which habe as cor pus relief is available.
CO NC LU SION The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE