### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 2000 Session JAMES F. KARLS v. PERCY PITZER, ET AL 

### . Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County

No. 9153 Jon Kerry Blackwood, Judge

No. W1999-01107-COA-R3-CV - Filed September 12, 2000

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. We af

firm the ruling of

the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgmen

t of the Circuit C

ourt Affirmed;

and Remanded

D AVID R. F ARMER , J., delivered the opinion of the cour

t, in which W. F RANK C RAWFORD , P.J., W.S., and H OLLY K. L ILLARD , J., joined.
James F. Karls, Pro Se

. Tom Anderson, Jackson, Tennessee, for the app ell ees, Percy Pitzer, Corrections Corporation of America and Doctor R. Crants.
OPINION

James F. Karls, pr oceeding pro se , appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be grant ed. See Rule 12.02(6) Tenn. R. Civ. P. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted challenges the legal sufficiency of the claim. This motion does not weigh the strength of the proof presented

by the petitioner. A court determines whether to grant the motion based solely on the allegations sta

ted in the complaint, and, for purposes of the motion, the allegations are taken as true. See Bell ex. rel. Sny der v. Icard, Merr

ill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A. , 986 S.W.2d 550 (Tenn. 1999).

In early 1993, the petitioner was extradited to the United States as per an agreement between the governments o

f Costa Rica and the United States. The terms of the extradition agreement required that Mr. Karls serve no more than twenty-five y ears imprisonment if convicted. On April 22, 1994, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. On January 12, 1995, the Wisconsin

governor commu

ted the appellant

’s sentence to twe

nty-five y ears with no possib

ility of parole to honor the extradi

tion agreement

. On a date

not made clear by the record, the appellant was-2-

delivered to the custody of Corrections Corpo

ration of Americ

a (CCA). CCA place

d Mr. Karls

at Whi tev ill e Co rrec tio nal Faci lit y, a C CA o pera ted pri vat e pri son faci lit y in H arde man Cou nty.
On July 22, 1999, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habea s corpus alleging that h is incarceration

by CCA is unlaw

ful as it violates th

e Unit ed Sta tes, Tennessee a nd Wisconsin Constitutions as well as Tennessee and Wisconsin statutes. The petitioner pled what he considered “numerous assignments of error” including: 1) bre a ch of international agreements, 2) unlawful extradition from a foreign country, 3) improper conviction, 4) unlawful clemency commutation, 5) illegal confinem ent, and 6) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. In addition, the petitioner claimed that he was no longer a Wisconsin state prisoner because he had been remanded to the custody of CCA in violation of

Wiscons in law. On July 30, 1999, the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it failed to state

a cause upon which relief can be granted. The petitioner
now seeks this court’s review of the lower court’s dis

missal, stating in

his petition the he “disagrees and even strongly

feels that he has stated quite a claim and relief should be granted according to the Tennessee [c]onstitution.” It is the concl usion of this

court that the trial court correctly dismissed the petition for habeas corpus relief.

In Tennessee, hab

eas corpus relie

f is availa

ble only if “it appears upon the face of the judgment or the record

of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered, that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant’s sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired.” Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). If the reviewing court finds nothing to indicate that the petitioner’s convictions are entitled to relief, the court shall dismiss the petition without issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 (1980). In addition, under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court has the authority

to dismiss pleadings which fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.

The petitioner conte

nds that the convic

ting court in Wisco

nsin was wit

h out jurisdiction to sentence the petitioner because the court entered a statutorily mandated life sentence in violation of the twenty-five year limit in the international extradition agr eement between the United States and Costa Rica. We fail to see how this sentence would deprive the state of Wisconsin of jurisdiction for a crime

committed within the borders of that state. Additionally, the petitioner challenged his extradition from

Costa Rica, his conv

iction, hisclemency commutation by Governor Thompson a nd ineffective assistance of his appellate counse

l. These issues do not render the petitioner’s conviction void, merely voidable; and thus, are not grounds for which habeas corpus relief may

be granted in Tennessee. Additionally, the petitioner has not raised any claims in his petition that his sentence has expired, and thus it is not necessary for the court to address this issue. A petitioner for habeas corpus relief bears the burden of demonstrating that his conviction is void or that his term of confinement has expired. See Passarella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Mr. Karls has not shown that the judgment convicting him is void, and,
as such, he has failed to meet his burden in this case. As the petition failed to state a claim which would entitle him to habeas corpus relief, the trial court was correct

in its dismissal of the petition.-3-

See id. (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109). Accordingly, the judg ment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of thisappeal are taxed to the appellant James F. Karls, and his surety, for which
exe cut ion may i ssu e if nece ssa ry.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE