### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 28, 200 6

JAM ES D . WE ST v. KEN NET H W. LOC KE, WAR DEN

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 3690 J. Randall Wyatt, Jud ge

No. M2006- 00291-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Janu ary 17, 2007

Petitioner, J ames D. W est, enter ed g uiltypleas in the Madison County Criminal Court to drivi ng afte r having been de clar ed a ha bitual motor vehicle off

ender , two counts of ag g ravated assault and two counts of reckless endang erme nt. He rece ived an eff ective sentence of four y ear s. On Octobe r 4, 20 05 , th e pe tit ion e r f

ile d a pr o s e pe tit ion fo r writ of hab eas c or pu s in the Da vid so n Co un ty Criminal Court alleging that his sentencehad expired. On January 5, 2006, the trial court dismi ssed the petition without an evidentiary hearing or the appointm ent of c ounsel. Following our re view, we

a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt is Affi rm ed

D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

J ames D. West, Whitevill e, Te nnessee , Pro Se.

Robe r t E

. Co o p e r , Jr

. , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d Re p o r te r ; Je n n if e r L

. B le d s o e , A s s is ta n t A ttorney Ge n eral; Victor S. (Torry ) Johns on, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; Lisa Ang ela Nay lor, Assistant District Attorney

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

The pe titioner, J ames D. West, appe als the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habea s corpus. The rec ord re flec ts that on Dece mber 12, 1995, the pet i t ioner e ntere d g uiltypleas in M a dis on Cou nty

Cr imi na l Co urt to dr ivi ng a ft e r ha vin g be e n de c la re d a hab itu a l moto r v e hic le offe nder, two c ounts of rec kless endang erme nt and two counts of a g g ravated assault. He rec eived an ef fec tive sentenc e of f

our y ear s. On Dec ember

18, 1995, he re ceive d a medica l furloug h from a pre viouslyimposed sentence from Gibson County . When the petitioner fa iled to report f or ser vice of his M ad i s on Countysentenc e, the tria l court issued a c apias for his arre st on J anuary

17, 1996. On J une 9, 2005, the pe titioner was ar rested on the capia s and b ega n s er v i n g his sentence

. Acc ording to the state, the sente nce w as re calc ulated to re flec t the time in which he had a bsconded.A t t he t i m e o f t he f i l i ng o f t he p eti t i o n for w rit o f

ha b ea s co rp us, t he p eti t i o ne r w as co nfi ne d at t he C ha rles B ass 1

C o rr ect i o n C o m p l ex i n D avi d son C o unt y

. So m et i m e af t er co m p l et i o n of t he hab eas pro ceed i ngs i n t he t ri al co urt , t he
p e tit io n e r w a s re lo c a te d to the H a rd e m a n C o u n ty C o rr e c tio n a l F a c ili ty i n W h itev ill e , T e n n e sse e

.
-2- On October 4, 2005, t he petitioner f iled a pro se petition for writ for habea s corpus , contending that 1 his fo ur y e ar s e nte nc e ha d e xpir e d. Up on re vie w of the pe tit ion a nd the state ’s mot ion to d ism iss
, the trial court denied the pe tition.

A N A LY S IS

Tenne ssee law provides that “[a]ny person imprisoned or restra ined of his liberty under a ny pre te n s e w h a ts o e v e r

. . . may p r o s e c u te a w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s to in q u ir e in to th e cause of such imprisonment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-101. Ha beas r elief is limited and ava i l ab l e only when it a ppear s on the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proce eding s that a trial court was without jurisdiction to convict the petitioner or that the petitioner’s sentenc e has expired. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). To preva il on a petition f or writ of habea s corpus, a petitioner must establish bya pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that a judg ment is voi d o r t h at a term of imprisonment has expired. See S tate ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar , 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291-92 (1964) . I f a pe tition fails to s tate a c og nizable claim, i t may be dismissed summarily

by the trial court without furthe r inquiry

. See State ex re l. B yrd v. Boma r, 214 Tenn. 476, 483, 381 S.W .2d 280, 283 (1964); Te nn. Code Ann. § 29-21- 109.

At the tr ia l c ou rt le ve l, the pe tit ion e r a lle g e d that hi s p re se nt c on fi ne me nt i s il le g a l be c a us e the four y ear

sentenc e re n d er ed i n 1995 had expired at the time that he was a pprehe nded in J une 2005. The state f

iled a motion to dism iss t h e p etition that alleg ed the f acts surr ounding the petitioner’s medic al furloug h from G i bson County , failure to appea r in Madison County

and subsequent ca

pias leading to his arr est in 2005, supported by the affidavit of Corre ctional Prog ram Direc tor Roberta A nderson. Thus, the state a rg ued that the pe titioner’s sentenc e had not e x pired a nd that the petition should be dismis sed. The trial court a g ree d.

For the first time on appe al, the petitioner a dmits t hat he wa s furloug hed to an inpatient dr ug trea tment prog ram by

Gibson Countyand wa s actua lly underg oing trea tment when the c apias fr om Madison Countywas issued. He states that the staff at the tre atment fa cility

informed him o f t he

c apia s b ut a lso tol d h im tha t th e c apia s w ou ld b e re c a lle d s inc e he wa s u nd e rg oin g tr e a tme nt. I n f a c t, he cla ims that the staff verified that there we re no a ctive wa rra nts ag ainst him in Madison or Gibson counties whe n he wa s rele as ed fr o m the treatment prog ram in Mar ch of 1996. A fter le aving the pr og ra m, the pe tit ion e r re ma ine d in Ma dis on Cou nty we re he ha s re sid e d a nd wo rk e d fo r the p a st eleve n y ear s. The petitioner a lso claims to have satisfied a ll financial oblig ations arising out of the Gibson and Madison County convictions prior to being arr ested on the c apias in June 2005. Base d upon these circ umstances, the petitioner arg ues that his se ntence has expired due to the dela y in the execution of i ts service

. Additionally
, the petit ioner a rg ues that his petition should have bee n trea ted

a s o ne fo r pos t- c on vic tio n re lie f an d tr a ns fe rr e d b a c k to Ma dis on Cou nty . Se e Sta te v. Mc Kn ig ht,W e n ot e t h at t h e pet i t i on er a dmi t s i n h i s br i ef t h at h e h as a l r ea dy a l l eged thi s cl ai m i n a pos t

- con v i ct i on 2

p e tit io n in M a d iso n C o u n ty.

-3- 51 S.W .3d 559 (Tenn. 2001) ; State v. Walker, 905 S.W .2d 554 (Tenn. 1995); Kelly v. State, 61 S.W .3d 341 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000)

. 2

An ap p el l an t i s b o u n d b y t h e t h eo ry asserted at the trial court l ev el an d m ay n o t ch an ge theories on a

ppeal. State v. Adle r, 71 S.W.3d 299, 303 ( T en n

. Crim. App. 2001)(citing State v. Ba nes, 874 S.W.2d 73, 82 (T en n

. C rim. App. 1993). F urthermor e, the theory asserted on appe al does not implicate habe as re lief but instead implicates post-c o n v iction relief. T he petitioner’ s alleg ation that requiring him to serve the se ntence constitutes a due pr ocess violation m akes the judgme nt in this case mere ly vo i d able and not void. Furthermore, in orde r to preva il in his due pr oc e ss a rg ume nt, the pe tit ion e r m us t be wi tho ut f a ult in the fa ilu re to e xec ute the se nte nc e . St a te v. Chapman, 997 S.W.2d 122, 126 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); see, e.g ., Gary Maurice Sex ton, J r. v. State, No. E2003-00910- CCA-R3-PC, 2004 W L50788 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, J an. 12, 2004)(pe titioner cannot pre vail in due proc ess ar g ument when he never prese nted h i m s el f to the proper authoriti es fo r t h e s ervice of his sentenc e). F or all of these rea sons, the petitioner’s

argum ents on app e a l are no t w e ll- take n a ndthe lim ite d is su e fo r this c ou rt ’s de te rm inatio n is whether the trial court erre d in summarily dismiss ing the petition.

The de termination of whe ther to g rant habea s corpus relief is a matter of law; and, ther efor e, we will re view the tria l court’s finding de novo without a pre sumption of corre ctness. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . The re co rd re fl ects that the pe titioner was sente nced to a n eff ective se ntence of four y ear s on Dec ember 12, 1995 and bega n to serve his sentenc e in J une 2005. Th e pe tit ion e r a dmi ts tha t he fa ile d to app e ar f or se rv ic e of the se nte nc e a nd a c apia s fo r h is a rr e st was issued by

the trial court. After be ing a rre sted almost ten y ear s later, he beg an ser ving the foury e ar s e nte nc e a s o rd e re d. I n d ism iss ing the pe tit ion , th e tr ia l c ou rt fo un d th a t th e jud g me nt o n it s fac e wa s neither void nor ha d the sentenc e expired. I n this court’s opinion, the petition filed in the
tr ia l c ou rt su ff ic ie ntl y ra ise d a n iss ue re g ard ing the e xpir a tio n of the pe tit ion e r’ s se nte nc e a ndsh ou ld not have be en summarily dismiss ed. Howe ver, ba sed upon the admissions made by the petitioner on ap p e a l r e g ar d in g h is f

a il u r e to r e p o r t f

o r s e r v ic e o f th e s e n te n c e , th is c o u r t c a n n o t ru le that the petitioner is entitled to the appointment of counsel a nd an evide ntiary hearing r eg arding the habe as corpus a lleg ation.

CONCL USI ON

Th e p etitioner suffic iently raised a n issue reg arding the expiration of his sentence at the habea s trial court leve l. Ho wever, base d upon his admissions and arg uments on appea l, the court fi nd s th a t th e a lle g a tio ns do no t me ri t ha be a s r e lie f. Th e re fo re , th e ju dgme nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is aff irmed.

___________________________________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE