# FIL ED Sep te mb er 1 3, 19 96 Cecil W. Crow son A pp ellat e C ou rtC lerk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE

A T NASHVILLE JUN E SE SSIO N, 1996

FRA NK GLENN HA LL , ) ) No. 01C 01- 9510- CC -0 0352 Appel lan t ) ) H IC KM AN C OU N TY v s . ) ) Ho n . Co rn e lia A. Cla rk, Ju d ge DA VID MILLS, WA RDEN, and ) STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE , ) (Habea s Corpus) ) Appel lee s )
For the Appel lan t: For the Appel lee : Frank Gl enn H all , Pro Se Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Turney C enter Ind. Pr is on Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter Rou te N o. 1 Onl y , TN 37140- 9709 Cy ri l V. F ra ser Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l Cr imi nal Ju sti ce Di v is ion 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kway Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Josep h D. Bau gh, Jr. Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l Rona ld Dav is Ass t. Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l P. O . Bo x

937 Frankl in, TN 37065- 0619

OPIN ION F ILED : AFF IR ME D
Dav id G. H ayes Ju d geT his case originally sty led, St ate of

Te nne ssee, ex

rel, Frank Gle nn Hall 1 v s. Dav id Mill s, W arde n, w as initially f iled in the Court of

Appe als, Middle Sect ion
. It w as proper ly transfer re d to the C our t of C ri minal Appea ls and the capt ion ha s bee n restyled to correctly ref lect the natu re of the pro ceed ings. 2 OPIN ION The appel lan t, Frank Gl enn H all , app eal s a s o f ri g ht fro m the Hi ck man Coun ty Circuit Court's denia l of his applicat ion for w rit of hab eas co rpus. He i s 1 cur re ntl y co nfined atthe Turney C enter faci li ty of the D epar

tment of Cor re cti on w here he is se rv ing a fifty y ear se ntenc e for ten a rmed ro bber y co nv icti ons. The app ellant 's convictions, resulting f rom a jury v erdict in Ruth erford Coun ty, w ere aff ir med by

thi s c our

t on appeal
. Stat e v . F ra nk Gl enn H all , N o. 88 -1 86- III , (Tenn. C ri m. App. at Nas hv il le, F eb. 9 , 198 9)
. In F ebr uar y , 199 2, t he appe ll ant peti ti oned for

pos t- conv icti on reli ef cl aimi ng i neffect iv enessof tr ial co unsel
. The Rut her ford C ounty

C ri minal C our

t den ied the appel lan t' s c lai m for pos t- conv icti on re li ef. This di smi ss al w as aff ir med by thi s c our

t. F ra nk Gl enn H all v . St ate, No. 01C 01- 9205- CC -0 0157 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , Se pt. 8, 19 92)
. A mot ion to re cons ide r w as filed , butwas deni ed by thi s c our

t as bei ng "too lat e to enter tai n." On A ug ust

25, 1993, the a ppel lan t s oug ht an appl ic ati on for extraordin ar y appeal pursuantto Rul e 10, Tenn. R . Ap p. P
. This co urt den ied the appel lan t' s req uest on Sep tember

22, 1993. Al most two y ears l ater , on Jul y 14, 1995, the a ppel lan t f iled the instan t pet ition for w rit of hab eas co rpus. T he Hickma n Coun ty Circuit Court dism issed th e ap pellan t's petitio n, f inding tha t it fa iled to sta te a cognizable claim for hab eas co rpus relief . Th e ap pellan t now contests th is dismissal. The appel lan t c ontendsthathi s c onv icti ons are v oid for two reason s ( 1) the trial court's instruction on the def inition o f "reaso nab le dou bt" was errone ous, and (2) he receiv ed ine f fective assistance of

app ellate coun sel. Th e trial court dis mis sed the a ppel lan t' s p eti ti on for habeas co rp us re li ef f ind ing thes e g ro unds3

ins uff ic ien t t o v oid the appel lan t' s c onv icti ons.
In T enn essee , hab eas co rpus relief is only av ailable w hen a conviction is v oid bec ause the c onv icti ng co urt was w it hout jur is dicti on or auth or ity

to sent ence a defend ant , or thata defend ant 's sente nce h as expired and he is bei ng i ll eg all y

rest ra ine d. Archer

v . St ate, 851 S. W .2d 1 57, 1 64 ( Tenn. 1993 ). In distin guishing habe as corpu s relief f rom p ost-con v iction relief , this court in Pass arell a v . St ate, 891 S. W .2d 6 19, 6 27 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1994) , hel d tha t: If the c our

t render ing a j udg ment hasj ur is dicti on of the person, the subj ect -matter , and has the author ity to make t he c hal len g ed jud g ment, the j udg ment i s void abl e, no t void ; and the jud g ment ma y n o tb e c o l l a t e ra l l y

a tt a c k e d i n a s u i tfo r

h a b e a s c o r p u s re l i e f. Con v ersel y , i f the face of the record rev eal s t hat t he c our t di d nothav e personal and subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on, o r the a uthor ity to make t he chal len g ed j udg ment, the j udg ment i s void
. Ini ti all y , we not e tha t an all eg ati on of an er ro neous j ur y i nst ru cti on w il l not sus tai n an act ion for h abeas co rp us re li ef. See Vos s v . R aney , N o. 02 C01 - 9501- CC -0 0022 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. at Jac ks on, A ug . 2, 1995) , per m. to appeal deni ed, ( Tenn. N ov . 20, 1995) ; Thor nton v . R aney , N o. 02 C01 -9 302- CC -0 025 (Tenn. C ri m. App. at Jac ks on, J anuar y 26, 1994) , per m. to appeal deni ed, ( Tenn. Ma y 23, 1994)
. Fur

ther more, our

co urts hav e c onsi ste ntl y uphel d the ch all eng ed re a s o n a b le d o u b tin s t ru ct io n a s co n s t it u t io n a ll y va li d
. Se e , e . g. , St a t e v. Ni chol s, 877 S. W .2d 7 22, 7 34 ( Tenn. 1994 ), c ert den ied , __U .S. __, 1 15 S. Ct
. 909 ( 1995) ; Pe tty

joh n v . St ate, 885 S. W .2d 3 64 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per m. to app. deni ed, ( Tenn. 1994 ); Sta te v . Be ck ham, N o. 02 C01 -9 405- CR -0 0107 (Tenn. C ri m. App. at Jac ks on, S ept. 27, 1 995) ; Stat e v . Vo aden, No. 01C 01- 9305- CC -0 0151 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. at Nas hv il le, D ec. 22, 1994) , per m. to appeal deni ed, ( Tenn. M ay

1, 1995)
. Acc ordin g ly , t hisi ss ue i s w it hout meri t.
Con cer nin g the appel lan t' s s econd i ss ue, a ll eg ing i neffect iv e as si sta nce of app ellantcoun sel, the trial court foun d (1) lack of subjectmat ter jurisdiction in that the p eti ti on was not fil ed i n the co unty of conv icti on and (2 ) iti s t ime bar re d.4

W e ag re e w it h the se findi ng s. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 30- 103( a) ( 1994 S upp.) (repeal ed 1995 ) re q uires that a pet it ion for p ost -c onv icti on reli ef be broug ht i n the county of conv icti on. The peti ti on was filed i n H ic kman C ounty , howev er , t he app ellant 's conviction orig inate s in Rutherford Coun ty. Th us, th e trial court did nothave subject m atte r juri sdiction ov er the p etition . M oreo v er, the record est abl is hes that the a ppel lan t' s j udg ments of conv icti on bec ame final on Febr uar y 9, 1989. The appel lan t' s c lai m, al thoug h c og niz abl e for post -c onv icti on pur poses , i s n onethel ess ti me bar re d as i t was filed outs ide the appl ic abl e three y ear st atute of li mita ti ons per iod
. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 30- 102 ( 1990) (repeal ed 1995 ). Ad dit ion all y , t hisi ss ue i s waiv ed bec ause itco uld hav e been present ed i n the appel lan t' s first peti ti on for post -c onv icti on reli ef f il ed i n 1992. See Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 30- 111 ( 1990)( re peal ed 1995 ); Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 30- 112 ( 1990)( re peal ed 1995 ). Ac cordin g ly , t hisi ss ue i s a ls o w it hout meri t.
For the foreg oin g reason s, the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt di smi ss ing the appel lan t' s a ppl ic ati on for w ri t of habeasco rp us is aff ir med.5 _________

_________

_________

_________ DAVI D G. HAYE S, Ju d ge

CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

_________ JO HN H. PE AY, Ju d ge

_________

_________

_________

_________ W IL L IA M M. B AR KE R, Ju d ge