### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs D ec em be r 5, 200 6
ERI C D. WALLACE v . STEPHE N DOTSO N, WARDEN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 06-02-0126 Jose ph H . Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2006-00908-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled March 22, 2007

The pe titioner, Eric D. Wallac e, appe als from the circ uit court’s summary dismiss al of his s econd pr o s e pe tit ion

fo r wri t of

ha be a s c or pu s. F oll ow ingour r e vie w o f t he pa rt ie s’ br ie fs and

a pp lic a ble law, we a ff

ir m th e c ir c uit

c ourt ’s jud g me nt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.
Eric D. Wallac e, Whiteville, Tennessee , Pro Se.
Michae l E. Moore, Ac ting Attorne y Gene ral a nd Reporter ; David H. F indley , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

In 1995, the petitioner wa s convicted of first deg ree murde r

a n d a tt e mp ted first degree murder and sente nced to c ons ec u t i v e s entences of life and fifte en y ear s, respe ctively . The pe titioner’s convictions and sente nces w ere aff irmed on direc t appea l. State v. Eric D. W al l ace , No. 02-C-01-9604- CR-00125, 1997 WL 421011 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, July 28, 1997), perm. app. denied (Tenn. A

pril 6, 1998). The petitioner was de nied post-conviction re lief. Eric W allace
v . S tate , No. W2000-02854-CCA-R3CD, 2002 W L1483204 (Tenn

. C ri m . App., at Jackson, Fe b. 19, 2002), perm. app. de nied (T e nn . Se pt. 9, 20 02 ). Th e re a ft e r, the pe tit ion e r f ile d a pe tit ion fo r wri t of ha be a s c orpus , alleg ingthat hi s in dic tme nts we re de fe c tiv e . T he Cir c uit Court of L a ud e rd a le County dismiss ed the petition and dismiss al was a ffirme d on appea l. Eric D. W allace v. W

arden, Jame s M. Duke

s , No

. W 2 0 02-00882-CCA-R3-CO, 2002 WL31895727 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, D ec. 31, 2002) , perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Ma r. 10, 2003).
On J uly 19, 2002, the petit ioner filed another pe tition for habea s corpus re lief, alleg ing that there was a

fata l va rianc e betwee n the indictment a nd the proof at trial, and the a ffidavit of c omplaint-2-

and the a rre st warr ant wer e invalid. The Circuit Court of Har deman County dismiss ed the pe tition, finding no cog nizable claim for r elief. The petitioner appe aled.

I n T e n n e s s e e , “ [a ]ny

p e r s o ni mp r i s o n e d

o r r e s tr a i n e d

o f h i s l i b e rty , un d e r

an y p r e te ns e wh a tso e ve r, e xce pt [tho se hel d und e r f e de ra l a uth or ity], ma

y pr os e c ute a

wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s to inquire i nto the cause of such imprisonment and re straint.” Chu rc h v . S tate , 987 S.W .2d 855, 857 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-101 et seq

. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which a writ of habe as cor pus may be issued ar e ver

y narr ow. Tay lor

v . S tate , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only when it appe ars on the fac e of the judgme nt or the recor d of the proc eeding s upon which the judg ment was re ndere d that a cour t was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the pe titioner or that the petitioner is still im prisoned despite the expiration of his sentence. Arc he r v . S tate , 8 51 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v . S tate , 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . The purpose of a ha beas c orpus petition is to conte s t v o i d and not
mere ly voidable judg ments. Archer , 8 51 S.W. 2d a t 16 3. A v oid

jud g me nt is a f

a c ia lly inv a lid jud g me nt, c le arl y

sh ow ingthat a

c ourt did no t ha ve statut or

y a uth ori ty to r e nd e r s uc h ju dg me nt; wh e re a s, a

vo ida ble jud g me nt i s fa c ia lly va lid , r e qu ir ingpr oo f b e y on d th e fa c e of the jud g me nt t o establish its invalidi ty

. See Taylor , 995 S.W .2d at 83. The bur den is on the petitioner to esta blish, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, “t h at t h e s entenc e is void or that the conf inement is illega l.” W y att v . S tate , 24 S.W. 3d

31 9, 32 2 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) . M or e ov e r, it i s p e rm iss ibl e fo r a c ourt to sum m ar i l y dismiss a petition for ha beas c orpus re lief, without the appointment of counse l and without an evidentiar

y hear ing, if

the petitioner does not state a c og nizable claim. See H ickman v

. Sta te , 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004)

. The pe titioner is not entitled to ha beas corpus relief

. To beg in, the petitioner’s a lleg ation – that of a fata l va ri anc e be tw e e n th e of

fe ns e s c ha

rg e d in the ind ic tmen t and the pr oo f at tr ia l – i s simply a diffe rent for

m of challeng e to the validity of the indictment. This issue has alrea dy been adjudicate d in a prior ha

beas pr ocee ding a

nd on appea l. W

allace , 2002 WL31895727 (holding the indictment pr ovided adequa te notice of the offe nses for which the petitioner w as convic ted, thus, the indictment was not defe ctive). Mor eover , this court has pre viously held that the alleg ation of a f atal varia nce be tween the indictment and proof a t trial is not a cogni zable g round for habea s corpus relief

. See W illiam T. Y

elton v. Robe rt W

aller, W arden , N o
. M 2 0 0 4

- 0 2 5 2 9

- CC A

- R3

- H C, 2 0 0 6 WL 11 96 28 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p., at Nas hv il le , Jan . 1 7, 20 06 ); Ste ph e n La jua n B e as le

yv . S tate , No. E2005-00367-CCA-MR3-HC, 2005 WL 3533265 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Dec

. 27, 2005), perm. app. de nied (T e nn . May 30 , 2 00 6) ; By ro n E

dwa rd s v . S tate , N o. E2 00 4- 00 91 8- CCA -R 3- HC , 2004 WL 2951975 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Dec . 20, 2004), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Ma

r. 21, 2005).

L ikewise, the pe titioner’s alleg ation that the affi d av i t of complaint and the arr est war rant we re de fi c ie nt i s not a co g niza ble c la im. In b ri e f, the pe tit ion e r a pp e ars to a

rgue ra the r a bs tr us e ly that th e af

fi davit of complaint and a rre st warr ant wer e def

ective be cause the documents did not furnish notice of

all the offe nses cha

rg ed and “ had an e ffe ct on the leg al p ro cee dings pr ior to the in d ic tm e n t in a s mu c h a s th e w ar r an t is th e le a d in g p r o c e s s
. ” Up o n r e v ie w , w e f ir s t n ote that the
c ha rg ingdocum ents th a t su

pp or t th e pe tit ion e r’ s c onvic tio ns are the ind ic tme nts , n ot t he arr e st-3-

war rants. “I f the a ffidavit of c o m p l ai n t an d arr est war rant we re inva lid and void that would not prev en t a v al id judgment of conviction from be ing obta ined.” J am es R us se ll G an n v . S

tate , No. 03C01-9707-CR-00274, 1998 WL334398, *1 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p
. , at Knoxvil le, J une 25, 1998) (citation om itted). As this court pre viously held, the indictment ag ainst the petitioner wa s not defe ctive. See W

allace , 2 00 2 WL

31 89 57 27 . T he re fo re , th e tr ia l c ourt , p ur su ant t o a va lid indictment, was vested w ith jurisdiction t o adjudicate the petitioner’s c ase a nd enter judgme nts of conviction. To re iterate , the judg ment must be void on its face befor e it can be attacke d by a petition fo r wri t of

ha be a s c or pu s. Se e, e .g ., Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. There fore , the petitioner fa ils to st ate a cog nizable claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. Upon due c onsideration of the pleading s, the rec ord, and the applica b l e law, the court conclude s that the p et i t i o n er has not established a c og nizable claim for ha beas c orpus re lief. The judgme nt dismi ssing the pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus is affirme d.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE