### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 7, 200 6

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . FREDERICK D. DEBE RRY

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for F ayett e County No. 3737 J. WeberMcC raw, Jud ge

No. W2005-02843-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jul y 20, 2006

The Defenda nt, Fr eder

ick D. Debe rry , appea ls from an order of t he trial court dism issing his “motion for ne w trial.” The trial court dismissed the pleading beca use it “was not timely

filed, the issue ha s p r e v io u s ly

b e e n a d ju d ic a te d in th is matt e r

a n d th e M o ti o n f

o r N e w Trial is n o t w e ll

- ta k e n

. ” We

a ff ir m th e or de r o f the tr ia l c ou rt pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

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 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 , i n wh ich G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J., a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J ., joined.

Fr ederick D. De berry , Pro Se.

Pa ul G. Sum me rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorne y Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On Novembe r 14, 2005, the De fenda nt filed a “ motion for new tria l.” He listed as his curr ent addre ss a federa l penitentiary in Flore nce, Colora do. I n support of his motion, the Defe ndant alleg ed prose cu t o ri al misconduct, ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel, and that insuffic ient evidenc e wa s prese nted which de nied him a fa ir trial.

I n the “br ief” he filed in support of his motion, the Def endant stated t h at fo l l o wi ng a jury trial, he wa s convicted of ag g ravated rape in 1992 in F ay ette County . He a lleg es that he r ece ived a
sentenc e of twe nty

y ear s which wa s to be serve d consec uti v el y to a sentenc e he r ece ived for a conviction in fede ral c ourt i n M i s s i s s i p p i . I n the brief , he ar g ues that his due proc ess rig hts and pr ote c tio n f

ro m do ub le je op ard y

we re vio la te d, that he wa s d e nie d h is rig ht t o b e c on fr on te d w ith witnesses, that he r ece ived ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel, th at t h e evide nce pr esente d was insufficient to support his conviction, and that he was “ wrong fully ” convic ted.-2-

I n its brief, the Stat e n o tes that this Court affirmed the Def endant’ s conviction on direc t appea l. See State v. Fr ederick D. Debe rry , No. 02C01-9304-CC-00074, 1993 WL 492702 (Tenn. Crim. App., J ackson, D ec. 1, 1993) . Our sup re m e court denied the D efe ndant’s application for permission to appea l on May 16, 1994. I d.

As t h e St a te n o te s , a mo ti o n f o r n e w tria l mu s t b e ma d e w ith in th irty d a y s o f th e d a te the

or de r o f s e nte nc e is e nte re d. Se e Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 3 3( b) . T his pr ov isi on is m a nd a tory , a ndthe tim e for f iling the motion may

not be extended. See Te nn. R. Crim. P. 45(b). I t is clea r t hat t he motion fo r n e w t ri a l f iled by th e De fe nd a nt i n 2 00 5 is un tim e ly a nd , a s su c h, the tr ia l c ou rt didno t e rr

in d i s m i s s i n g t h e p l ea d i n g.

I t also appea

rs that the plea ding a lleg es g rounds which a re g ener ally

appropriate for

a petition for post-c onviction relief. See Tenn. C o d e Ann. § 40- 30-101 to -122. It is also appare nt that the petition was filed long after the ex piration of t he one-y ear statute of l imitations for f iling a pe tition for post-c onviction relief. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102( a). The pleading does not alleg e any g rounds which would pr ovide an exception to the statute of limit ations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-102(b) . The trial co u rt d i d n ot err in dismissing the ple ading if it was trea ted as a petition for post-conviction re lief.

F inal ly
, if

vie we d a s a

pe tit ion se e kin g ha

be a s c or pu s r e lie f, the tr ia l c ou rt

didno t e rr

in dismiss ing the petition. First, federa l prisoners are not entitled to the benef its of Tennesse e’s ha

beas

c or pu s sta tut e

. Se e Te nn . Code An n. § 29- 21 -1 02

. I n ad dit ion , habe a s cor pu s re lie f is a va ila

ble in this state only

when it appe ars on the f ace of the judg ment or the reco rd t h at the trial court was without jurisdiction t o convict or sentenc e the Def endant or that the sentenc e of imprisonment has otherwise e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W

. 2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). The purpose of the habe as corpus pe tition i s to contest a void, not mere ly a voidable, judgme nt. I d. at 163. Furthermore , the pleading fails to comply

with the mandatory

require ments of the habeas corpus statute. See Te nn. Cod e An n. § 2 9- 21 -1 07 . O ur su pr e me c ou rt

ha s r e c e ntl y

c on fi rm e d th a t th e pr oc e du ra l r e qu ir e me nts

are mandatory

and must be followed sc rupulously . See Hickman v. State, 153 S.W . 3d 16, 21 (Tenn. 2004). The tr ial court did not err in dismi ssing the ple ading if it was treated as a petition for habe as corpus r elief.

Be cause we f

ind no error in the action of the trial court dismissing the ple ading filed by the Def endant, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

___________________________________ DAVI D H. WEL LES, J UDGE