### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE

JAM ES A . U HLES v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Wayne County No. 97-B-1232-C t. II Robert L. Jones, Jud ge

No. M2004- 02002-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Janu ary 6, 2005

The De fenda nt, J ames A. U hles, appe als from the tria l court’s de nial of his pe tition see king ha beas corpus r elief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court aff irm the trial court’s denial of re lief pursua nt to Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. The State’s motion is gr anted. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our 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 opi nion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

J ames A. U hles, Clifton, Tennessee , Pro Se.

Paul G. Sum me rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l Ma rk ha m, As sis ta nt At torne y

Ge ne ra l; Mike Bottoms, District Attorney Gene ral; and Michelle Chapman McI ntire, As s i s t an t District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

The De fenda nt, J ames A. U hles, pleade d g uiltyto and was c onvi ct ed o f one c ount of rape of a c hild on Febr

uary 19, 1998. Pursuant to his plea ag ree ment, he re ceive d a sente nce of eig hteen y ear s in t h e De p ar tment of Correc tion. On J une 3, 2004, the De fendant filed a pe tition s eeking habea s corpus re lief. He alleg ed that his c onviction w as void be cause of a defe ctive indictment, that his plea ag ree ment was invalid bec ause the trial court did not “sig n off” on the ag ree ment, and that his eig hteen- y ear

sentenc e for

his Class A felony

conviction is illega l and void. The St ate f iled a motion to di smiss t he petition, asserting that the alleg ations in the petition did not e stablish that the Def endant’ s conviction was void or t hat hi s sentenc e had expired. The trial c ourt g rante d the State’s
mot ion a nd e nte re d an or de r d ism iss ing the pe tit ion . It is fr om this or de r that th e De fe nd a nt a pp e a ls.-2-

Article 1, se ction 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution g uarantees the right to see k habea s corpus relief and our statutes codify

the applica

ble proc edure s for see king a writ. Tenn. Code A nn. §§ 29- 21-201 et seq. Howeve r, the g rounds upon which our law provides re lief ar e very narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . Habe as cor pus relief is available in Te nnessee only when it appear s upon the fac e of the judgme nt or t he record of the proceeding s upon which the judg ment is render ed that (1) the convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority t o s en t en ce the defe ndant; or (2) the defe ndant’s sentenc e has expired. Arc her v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1 9 9 3 ). I t is permissible for a trial court to summarily dismiss a petition for ha beas c orpus re lief, without the appointment of counsel and without an evidentiary hearing, if there is nothing on the fac e of the judg ment to indicate that the convictions addre ssed there in are void. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

.

The De fenda nt co n t en d s that the indictment char g ing him is defe ctive bec ause it wa s not signe d by the District Attorney

Gene ral or the trial court c lerk. We note t h at t h e co p y of the ind ic tme nt atta c he d to the pe tit ion app e ars to c on ta in the sig natur e of the Di stric t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l. Howeve r, eve n if the i ndictment was unsig ned as a lleg ed, such de fec ts do not render an indictment void. I n addition, the petitioner has waived this issue because he did not ra ise it prior to pleading g uilty . Acc ording ly , this iss ue is without merit.

Th e De fe nd a nt a lso a sse rt s th a t th e ple a a g re e me nt i s in va lidbe c a us e the tr ia l c ou rt faile d to

“ sig n off” on th e ple a

a g re e me nt, ho we ve r, on e of the or de rs a tta c he d to the pe tit ion c on ta ins a finding by

the trial court that the plea of g uiltywas “ac cepta

ble” to the court. This issue is without merit.

F ina lly , th e De fe nd a nt a lle g e s th a t th e min imu m se nte nc e fo r c hil d r ape is t we nty -f ive y e ars , a ndthu s a

rg ue s tha t his eig hte e n- y e ar se nte nc e is ille g a l. Th e De fe nd a nt’ s all e g a tio n is inc or re c t. The possible sentenc ing r ang e for a Class A fe l o n y at t he time of the D efe ndant’s convic tion was fiftee n to six ty

y ear s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112. The Defendant did not rec eive a n illega l
sentenc e.
The indictment and judg ment of conviction contained in the record a re va lid on their fac e. There is nothing on the fac e of the judgme nt or the re cord of the proc eeding s on which the judg ment is r ender ed which e stablishes that the trial court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence the Def endant. This court conclude s that the petit ion for ha beas c orpus re lief wa s proper ly dismiss ed.

Ac c or din g ly , th e Sta te ’s mot ion is g rante d. Th e jud g me nt of the tr ia l c ou rt

is a ff ir me d in

a c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 of the Rul e s o f the Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE