1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

RA HIM A L Z AR KAN I v. D AV ID G. MILLS , S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 5947 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2005-01103-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Janu ary 30, 2006

The Petitioner, R ahim Al Z arkani, appea ls the t rial court’s denial of his petition for ha beas c orpus
re lie f. Th e Sta te ha s f

ile d a mot ionre qu e sti ng that this C ou rt a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt

pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is af firmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t Affir m e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which D AVI D G. H A Y ES and J.C. M C L IN , J J . joined.

Rahim Al Za

rkani, pro se

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Mark A. Fulks, Assi stant Attorney Gene ral, for the appellee , the State of Te nnessee

.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On J anuary

23, 1997, the Petitioner, Rahim Al Z arkani, entere d g uiltypleas to one count of

a tte mpt to c omm it f

ir st- de g re e mur de r andon e c ou nt o f s e c on d d e g re e mur de r, bo th c la ss Afe lon ie s. For these c onvictions, the Petiti oner r ece ived an e ffe ctive sente nce of thirty y ear s confineme nt.2

On Apr i l 1 8, 2005, the Petitioner filed an a pplication for ha

beas c orpus re lief in the L auder dale Count y Circuit Court. As g rounds for habea s corpus relief, the Petitioner claimed that the judgme nts of conviction wer e void be cause (1) the judgme nts of conviction failed to refle ct “the amount of day s he ser ved in t he county jail,” (2) the j udg ments wer e not signe d by the Petitioner’s att orn ey and (3) th e ju dgmen ts fai led to refl ecteit her a n i nd ict men t n um ber o r warr ant nu mb er. By
or de r e nte re d A pril 29, 20 05 , the tr ia l cou rt de nie d habe a s c or pu s r e lie f, fi nd ing that ju dg me nt f orms did re fl ec t p re t ri al jail cre dit from “Oc tober 1, 1995 to date (January 23, 1997).” The trial court further found that the Petitioner’s se ntence s have not ex p i red and that the criminal court had jurisdiction to sentence the Petitioner to the sentenc es imposed. A timely notice of appe al document

was filed on May 9, 2005. The Petitioner is curr ently confine d at the West Tennesse e State Prison in Henning , Tenne ssee.

The State ha s filed a moti on reque sting affirmanc e by this Court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. I n support of its motion, t he State asse rts that the Petitioner has faile d to pr ov e the fa c tua l a lle g a tions of hi s pet iti on by a pr e po nd e ranc e of

the e vid e nc e . A s a preliminary

matter, we note that the State’s r esponsive brie f was due on Dec ember 16, 2005. The State’s motion was rec eived by the Clerk of this Court on Dec ember 21, 2005, and the State se eks this Court’s permission to l ate- file its Rule 20 motion. On Dec ember 28, 2005, the Petitioner filed a motion to submi t the case based on the rec ord and hi s initial brief. See Tenn. R. App. P. 29(c)

. Un de r R ule 2, Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f A pp e llate Pr oc e du re , it is w ith in the dis c re tio n o f this Cou rt to suspend the Rules of Appe llate Proce dure f or g ood cause , including the interest of e x pediting decision upon any

matter. Se e als o Tenn. R. App. P. 21(b). Having revie wed the State’s motion,

a ndfi nd ing that su sp e ns ionof the Rul e s in thi s matte r i s a pp ro pria te , th e State ’s mot ion to la te fi le its mot ion for af

firmanc e by

memorandum opinion is gr anted. In this reg ard, the Petitioner’s motion for submission of this matter on the re cord and his init ial brief is de nied.

I t is we ll e sta

bli sh e d th a t th e g ro un ds up on wh ic h habe a s cor pu s r e lie f m a y

be g rante d in thi s state ar e nar

row. Hickm an v. State, 15 3 S.W.3 d 16, 20 (T e nn . 2 00 4) (c itatio ns omi tte d) . Re lie f w ill be g rante d if the petition establishes that t h e cha lleng ed judg ment is void. Id. A j ud g me nt i s v oid "only when ' [i ]t appea

rs upon the fa ce of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proce eding s upon which the judg ment is render ed' that a convic ting c ourt was without jurisdiction or author i t y to sentence a def end ant , o r that a defe nd ant 's sen ten ce of im pri so nm ent or ot her r est rai nthas ex pi red. " Hickm an, 1 5 3 S

. W

. 3 d at2 0 (q u o t i n g State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted)). The pe titioner bear s the burden of establishing e ither a void judg ment or an illeg al conf inement by a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e. Pa ssa re lla v . S tat e , 891 S.W

. 2 d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). I f the pe titioner car ries this burden, he is entitled to immediate rele ase. Id. Howeve r, whe re the alleg ations in a petition f or writ of ha

beas c orpus do not demonstrate that the judgme nt is void, a trial c ourt may

corr ectly dismiss the petit ion without a hearing. Mc Lan ey v . B e ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 93 (T e nn

. 20 01 ) (c iti ng T. C.A

. § 29 -21-1 09 (20 00 ); se e , e .g ., Arc he r, 851 S.W .2d at 164 (par enthetica l omitt ed)) . The Petitioner does not c ontend that his sentence s have e x pired, thus, he is onlyentitled to relief if his judgments ar e void.3

I n his petition subm itted to the tr i al co u rt , the Petitioner alleg ed that the judg ments of conviction ar e void bec ause ( 1) the judgme nts f ail to r efle ct pre- trial cre dit, ( 2) the judgme nts w ere
no t s ig n e d b y

h is a tt o r n e y , a n d ( 3 ) th e ju d g me n ts n e ith e r r e f le c t a w arr a n t n u mb e r

o r in d ic tment number. Neither the signature of a defe ndant’s attorney nor an indictment numbe r or wa rra nt number are require ments for a valid judgme nt. See T.C.A. § 40-35-209( e). A dditionally , while the

a mou nt o f p re tr ia l ja il c re dit mus t be re fl e c te d o n th e jud g me nt fo rm , the jud g me nt fo rm s in thi s c a se do ref lect the a mount of pretria l jail credit aw arde d. See T. C.A. § 4 0- 35 -2 09 (e )( 16 ). F or the se
rea sons, the Petitioner has fa iled to prove his allegations bya pre ponderance of the evidenc e. The trial court pr operly

dismiss ed the pe tition.

The Petitioner failed to state a g round u p o n which habe as cor pus relief can be g rante d. Acc ording ly , the trial court properly dismiss ed the pe tition. The St ate’ s motion i s g rante d and the judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed in a ccor dance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Ap pe a ls.

___________________________________ 

### ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE