### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE
TAR US A. SIRC Y v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

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

No. 3540 Monte Watkins, Ju dge

No. M2004- 02482-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Janu ary 12, 2005

The De fenda nt, Tarus A. Sircy , appea ls from the trial court’s denial of his petition seeking habea s corpus r elief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court aff irm the trial court’s denial of re lief pursua nt to Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. The State’s motion is gr anted. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim . App. R.

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Tarus A . Sircy , Nashville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Eliz abeth T. Ry an, Assistant Attorney Gene ral and Reporte r; Victor S. J ohnson, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral; and Rog er Moor e, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

B a s e d u p o n o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l , i tap p e ar s t h a tt h e D e f e n d a n t , T aru s A

. S i r c y, pleade d g uiltyto and was c onvicted of thre e counts of bur g lary of an a utomobile o n J an u ar y

31, 2002. P u rs u an t to his plea ag ree ment, he re ceive d three consec utive two-y ear sentenc es, for

an eff ective se ntence of six y ear s. I n acc ordanc e with his plea ag ree ment, afte r rec eiving cre dit for pre

trial confine ment and ser ving some additional time in jail, the balanc e of his six-y ear sentenc e wa s to be serve d on probation.

Acc ording to the Def

endant’ s petition, his probation was re v o k ed following his arr est for DUI and he w as order ed to se rve the balanc e of his sente nces in c onfinement. The Def endant then filed a pe tition for habea s corpus re lief, alleg ing that his consecutive se ntence s we re t h e re s ult of ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel, that the t rial court erre d in ordering consec utive sentenc es and that-2-

the sentenc es violated his rig ht to due proce ss of law. The trial court determined that, even if true, the alleg ations contained in the petition did not entitle the Def endant to habe as cor

pus relief . The tr ia l c ou rt thu s e nte re d a n or de r de nying the pe tit ion

. I t is f ro m th is o rd e r that th e De fe nd a nt a pp e a ls.
Article 1, se ction 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es the rig ht to seek habe as cor pus relief and our statutes codify the applicable procedure s for seeking a writ. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29- 21-201 et seq. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which our l aw provides relief are very narr ow. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . Habe as cor pus relief is available in Te nnessee only when it appear s upon the face of the j udg ment or t he record of the proc eeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed that (1) the convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authorit y t o s en tence the defe ndant; or (2) the def

endant’ s sentence has ex pired. Arc her v. St ate, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). It is permissible for a tria l court to summarily dismiss a pe t i t i o n fo r habe as cor pus relief , without the appointment of counsel a nd without a n evidentiary hearing, if there is nothing on the fa ce of t he judgment t o indicate that the convictions addre ssed t here in are void. Passare lla v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. The e ssence of the De fendant’s claim is that he should not have r ece ived con s ec utive sentenc es for

his three c onvictions f

or burg laries of automobiles. He arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed and ac ted contra

ry to law in sentenc ing him to consec utive sentenc es. We note that the De fendant’s sentenc es we re or dere d in acc ordanc e with his plea a g ree ment. The sentenc es we re authorized by law and ar e not illeg al. The judg ments of conviction conta ined in the re cord a re va lid on their fac e. There is nothing on the fa ce of the judg men t s o r t he proc eeding s on which the judg ments are rende red w hich establishes that the tria l court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence the Def endant. The Def

endant’ s sentenc es have not e x pired. This Court conc ludes that the petition for habea s corpus re lief wa s proper ly dismiss ed.

Ac c or din g ly , th e Sta te ’s mot ion is g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir med i n a c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 of the Rul e s o f the Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE