IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

BRUCE HUFFINES v. HOWARD CARLTON, WARDEN

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Johnson County

No. 3182 Jean Ann Stanley, Judge

No. E2009-01030-CCA-R3-HC - Filed June 16, 2010

The Petitioner, Bruce Huffines, appeals pro se the trial court’s summary dismissal of his

petition for habeas corpus relief from his conviction for forgery, a Class E felony. The State

has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s summary dismissal

pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude the petition

fails to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. The State’s motion is granted, and

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT

and NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JJ., joined.

Bruce Huffines, appellant, pro se.

Robert E. Cooper, Attorney General and Reporter; Matthew Bryant Haskell, Assistant

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Petitioner was sentenced to two years for forgery, to be served on community

corrections. His sentence was ordered to run consecutively to four concurrent sentences for

aggravated assault, for which he had been given five years’ probation. The Petitioner’s

probation was later revoked. The Petitioner contends that his two-year community

corrections sentence for forgery was illegal because (1) it was consecutive to the prior

sentences, (2) the sentence was ambiguous, and (3) he was ineligible for community

corrections.
In Tennessee, the grounds upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted are very

narrow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). The writ will issue only when the

petitioner has established lack of jurisdiction for the order of confinement or that he is

otherwise entitled to immediate release because of the expiration of his sentence. See Ussery

v. Avery, 432 S.W.2d 656 (1968); State ex rel. Wade v. Norvell, 443 S.W.2d 839 (1969).

The purpose of the habeas corpus petition is to contest a void, not merely a voidable,

judgment. State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1969). A void, as

opposed to a voidable, judgment is “one that is facially invalid because the court did not have

the statutory authority to render such judgment.” Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 256

(Tenn. 2007). A petitioner bears the burden of establishing a void judgment or illegal

confinement by a preponderance of the evidence. See Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322

(Tenn. 2000). A court may summarily dismiss a petition for habeas corpus relief, without

the appointment of counsel and without an evidentiary hearing, if the petition does not state

a cognizable claim. See Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004).

Nothing on the face of the Petitioner’s judgment of conviction for forgery shows that

it is illegal or that the trial court was without the jurisdiction to impose the sentence. The

trial court was permitted to order the Petitioner’s sentence for forgery to be served

consecutively to his previously imposed sentences for aggravated assault. See Tenn. R.

Crim. P. 32(c)(2)(A)(I). In addition, the sentence is not ambiguous. The judgment reflects

that the Petitioner was sentenced to two years in the Department of Correction, which was

suspended, and the Petitioner was placed on community corrections. See T.C.A. § 40-36-106

(2006). Finally, a prior conviction for aggravated assault does not absolutely preclude later

participation in the community corrections program. See Luther Haggard v. State,

M2003-02554-CCA-R3-HC, Davidson County, slip op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 9,

2004). The trial court did not err in dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The State’s motion is granted. The opinion provides no precedential value, the

proceeding occurred before the trial court without a jury, the action was not a determination

of guilt, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings, and no error

of law is apparent on the record. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20(1)(a), (2). The judgment

of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal

Appeals.

_____________________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON , PRESIDING JUDGE