### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 14, 200 9

REG INA LD ALM O v. H ENR Y S TEWA RD , WA RD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forLaud erdale County

No. 6266 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2008-02524-C CA-R 3-HC - Filed August 6, 2009

The pe titioner, Reginald Almo, appea ls pr o se the dismissal of his petition for habea s corpus re lief in the Laud e rd a le Cou nty Cir c uit Co urt from h is c on vic tio n f or se c on d d e gr e e mur de r, a Cla ss A fe lon y. Th e pe tit ion e r a lle ge d th a t: c ou ns e l pr ov ide d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l; h is g uil ty plea wa s entere d unknowingly and unintelligently; and he was sente nced outside of his range. T he habea s corpus c ourt determined that his claims of ineff ective a ssistance of co u n sel wer e not cognizab l e cl ai ms for re lief in a ha beas c orpus proc eeding and that his sentencing issue had previously bee n determined. After car eful revie w, we aff irm the dismiss al of the petition for habe as corpus r elief.
Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Af firme d

J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A LA N E. G LE NN a ndJ. C. M C L IN , JJ, joined.
Reginald Almo, Henning, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr
., Attorne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; a nd La c y Wil be r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION
The pro se petitioner wa s indicted in 1994, for fir st degree murder in Shelby County. He wa s convicted on July 10, 1995, a fter entering a plea of guilty to s econd de gree murder, and was sentenc ed to forty- five years as a R ange III offende r. On S eptember 17, 2008, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for habe as corpus relief . His initi al filing contained the complaints of ineff ective assistance of counsel. He filed an addendum a rgument conte nding that he was se ntence d outside of his ra n g e

. O n Se p te mb e r 2 5
, 2 0 0 8
, th e h ab e a s c o rp u s c o u rt d e n ie d th e p e ti ti o n f o r w r it o f h ab eas corpus.

An a lys is-2-

Th e pe tit ion e r h a s p re vio us ly a pp lie d f or ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f, rai si ng the iss ue of his

se nte nc ing . T his c ou rt

ha s p re vio us ly d e te rm ine d th a t th e pe tit ion e r w a s n ot s e nte nc e d il le ga lly :

Of fe nd e r c la ssi fi c a tio ns and

re le a se e lig ibi lity “ are no n- jur isd ic tio na l and

le g iti mate barg aining tools in pl ea ne g otiations under the Criminal SentencingReform Ac t of 1 9 89.” Bland v. Duk

es , 97 S.W .3d 133, 134 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) ( c iting Mc Con ne ll v . S

tate , 1 2 S. W.3 d 7 95 , 7 98 (T e nn. 200 0) ; Hi c k s v . S tate , 945 S.W .2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997)). The remaining claims raised by [t he p]etitioner, if proven, would result in voidable, not void, judgme nts. Se e Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Thus, these claims are not c og nizable in a habea s corpus pr ocee ding. [The p]etitioner did not . . . state a viable ground for habea s relief

; the re fo re , th e low e r c ourt wa s c or re c t in tr eat in g th e pe tit ion

a s o ne fo r p os tconviction re lief.

Re gin ald L. A lm o v . S

tate , No. W2003-02559-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 510, at **6-7 (Te nn

. C ri m . App. at Jackson, May 25, 2005). F or this rea son, the habe as cor pus court prope r ly d e te r

mi n e d th a t th e p e ti ti o n e r ’ s c la im th a t h e w a s s e n te n c e d o u ts id e h is r an g e had bee n previously

deter mined. The pe titioner is not entitl ed to re lief on this issue.

Next, the pe titioner contends that counse l was ineff ective, w hich pre vented him from entering a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty. Specific ally, he ar gued that counse l was ineff ective beca use he f ailed to advise the petitioner that another person had enter ed a plea of guilty as the killer and that counse l “coe rce d” him into entering a ple a of guilt y

. He a lso argues that counsel wa s ineffe ctive bec ause he did not secure a mental e valuation for the petitioner.
The g rounds upon whic h h abeas corpus r elief ma y be g rante d in this st ate a re na rrow. Hi c k ma n v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004) (citations omitted). Relief will be g rante d if the petition establishes that th e ch alleng ed judg ment is void. Id. A j ud g me nt i s v oid “ on ly wh e n ‘ it

a pp e ars up on the fa c e of the jud g me nt or the re c or d of the pr oc e e din g s upo n whi c h the jud g me nt i s rende red’ that a convic ting c ourt was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a def

endant, or that a def endant’ s sentence of imprisonment or other re straint has expired.” Hickm an , 153 S.W .3d at 20 ( qu oti ng Sta tev . R itc hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (citations om itted)). The petitioner bea rs the burde n of establishingeither a void judg ment or an illega l c onfinement by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). I f the pe titioner

car ries this burden, he is entitled to im mediate r elea se. Id. Howeve r, if the habea s corpus pe tition fails to demonstrate that the judgme nt is void or that the confine ment is ill eg al, neither appointment of counse l nor an e videntiary heari n g ar e require d, and the tria l court may proper ly dismiss the petition. Hickm an , 153 S.W .3d at 20 (c itations omi tted).

When a prisoner

con t en d s that he wa s denied the c onstitut ional rig ht to the effe ctive assistance o f counsel, the judg ment is voidable, not void, unless the fac e of the rec ord establishes that the trial cour

t did not have jurisdiction of his person, the c ri m i n al o ff ense of which he sta

nds convicted, or

the authority

to make the judg ment attacke d. Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d at 627.-3-

The unde rlying judgment is not voi d on its face

. Her e, the petitioner has not car ried his burde n of establishing that the judgment was void bec ause he has not demonstrate d that the t rial court lacked jurisdiction or authority. There fore , we a ffirm the dismissal of the pe tition for habea s corpus re lief.

Conclusion

Based on the f

oregoing a nd the re cord a s a whole, we affirm the dismissal of the pe tition for habea s corpus re lief.

___________________________________ JOHN EVE RETT WILL IAMS, JUDGE