### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 21, 200 4

JAM ES W. TAY LOR ak a L UTFI S. TAL AL v. W AYNE BRANDON, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hickman County

No. 03-5057-C Russ Heldman, Judge

No. M2003- 02235-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Dece m ber 14, 2004

The Petitioner, James W. Tay lor (aka Lutfi S. Talal), filed a

petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus seeking relief

from an a lleg edly void judgme nt, which the tria l court dismissed. The Petitioner now
app e a ls c on te nd ing that th e trial cou rt e rr e d w he n it

dis mis se d h is p e tit ion be c a us e : ( 1) his prese ntments wer e fatally defe ctive which deprived the trial court of proper jurisdiction; (2) the trial judge violated his c onstitut ional rig hts; (3) the trial court e rre d when it orde red tha t the Petitioner’s
s en t en ce s ru n co n s ec u t i v el y ; (4 ) t h e t ri al co u rt er re d wh en i tfo u n d t h at t h e P et i t i o n erwa s a R an ge I I offe nder; (5) the t rial court err ed when it approve d an il leg al j udg ment of conviction; and (6) the habea s corpus c ourt err ed whe n it denied the Petitioner a right to r espond to the State. Finding no err or in the judg ment o f t h e t rial court, we af firm the trial c ourt’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition for habe as cor

pus relief

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., and J OE G. R I L EY , S P

. J ., joined.

J ames Willi am Tay lor aka Lutfi S. Talal, pro se, f

or the a ppellant. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Thomas E. Wil liams, I I I , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Ronald L

. Davis, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral; J. M ichae l Fahe y , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION I. F acts I n 1988, a Willi amson County jury convicted the P eti tioner, James W . Tay lor, of fe lony
mur de r, ro bb e ry

a ndse c on d d e g re e bu rg lary , a nd th e tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d th e Pe tit ion e r t o li fe in prison for the murder conviction, fiftee n y ear s for the bur g lary conviction, and f

ifteen y ear s for the robbery conviction. The P etitioner appealed his conviction t o this Court on num erous g rounds, and thi s Co urt a ff

ir me d th e Pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio n. Sta te v. Jame s Ta y lor , 199 0 WL 50 75 1 ( Te nn . Crim.-2-

App., at Na shville, Apr. 25, 1990), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. O ct. 8, 1990).

I n 1991, the Petitioner filed a pr o se petition for post-c onviction r elief in the tria l court, and the trial court appointed counse l, and counse l amended the Petitioner’s petition for post-convic tion relief . After

a hea ring on the issues raise d by the petition, the post-conviction court filed a
memora n d u m o p inion deny ing r elief. The Petitioner appea led to this Court, and we af firmed the post-con v ic ti o nc o u r

t’ s ju d g me n t. James Willi am Tay lor v. State, No. 01C01-9809-CC-00384, 2000 WL 64 1 1 4 8 (Tenn. Crim. App., a t Nashville, May 19, 2000), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2000). The Petitioner filed his first pro se petition for writ of habea s corpus in the Circuit Court for L auder dale County . On Aug ust 26, 2002, the trial court dismissed his p et i t i o n for writ of habea s co rp u s , h o l d i n g:

Petitioner did not attach a copy of the judg ment causing the re straint or a c opy of the re c or d o f the pr oc e e din g s, pe r T. C.A

. 29 -2 1- 10 7, a nd the pe tit ion is s ub je c t to summary dismiss al. State ex rel. Wood v. J ohnson, 393 S.W .2d 135. . . .

Fr om a re view of the petition, memo and the opinions the Cour t fi n d s that petitioner is not entitled to relief e ven if a copy of the judg ment order

had bee n attache d.

The trial court had jurisdi ction, and the petitioner’s sente nce ha s not ex pired. . . . No g rounds ar e allege d in the petit ion which would other wise entitle[] petitioner to a hearing. The petitioner complains of the trial proce dure which this Court can not consider, he had a f

ull post conviction h ea ri ng , this court can not c onsider the jury ins truc tio ns un de r this pe tit ion , th e ind ic tme nt i s n ot d e fe c tiv e , a ndthe c on vic tio n is not voidable under

this petiti on.

I n addition, it appea

rs that the petitioner may

have a lrea dy

raised the se issues in Fede ral Court, Middle District No. 3:01-0487.

I f the pe tition i s t re at ed as one for post-c onviction relief, this court has no jurisdiction. T.C.A. 40-30-204 and 202.

I t is therefor e ORDERED that the pe tition i s dismis sed.

On July 22 , 2 00 3, th e P e tit ion e r f ile d a se c on d p ro se pe tit ion fo r h abe a s c or pu s r e lie f i n Hickman County

. The State filed a motion to dismis s the petition asserting that the Petitioner failed to sta te a c o lo r ab le c la im

. T h e tria l c o u r t a g r e e d , a n d , o n A u g u s t 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 , it g r a n te d th e St a te’s mot ion to d ism iss the pe tit ion . It is fr om this or de r o f the tr ia l c ou rt that th e Pe tit ion e r n ow app e a ls.-3- II. Ana lys is
On appe al, the Petitioner conte nds that the trial court erred when it dismissed his petiti on beca use: (1) his pre sentments wer e fatally defe ctive which de prived t h e trial court of prope r jurisd ic tio n; ( 2) th e tr ial jud g e vio la te d h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts ; ( 3) the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d w he n it order ed that the Petitioner’s se ntence s run conse cutively ; (4) the tria l c ourt err ed when it found that the Petitioner was a

Rang e I I offe nder; (5) the trial court erre d when it approve d an illeg al judg ment of convic tion; and (6) the ha beas corpus court err ed when it denied the Petiti oner a rig ht to respond to the State.

Article I , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constituti on g uaran t ee s i t s ci tiz ens the rig ht to seek habea s corpus relief

. I n Tenne ssee, a “per son imprisoned or restra ined of [hi s or her ] l iberty , under any prete nse wha tsoever .

. . may prosec ute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 (2000). The g rounds upon which ha beas c orpus rel i ef wi l l b e granted are very narr ow. See Sta te v. Ritc hie, 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000)

. “Unlike the post-c onviction petition, the pur pose of a habea s corpus petition is to c ontest void and
no t me re ly

vo ida ble jud g me nts .” Pot ts v . St a te , 83 3 S .W .2 d 60, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . T he re fo re , in
or de r t o s ta te a

c og niza ble c la im fo r ha

be a s c or pu s re lie f, the pe tit ion mus t c on te st a vo id j ud g me nt. I d. “A void judg ment is one in which the judg ment is facia lly invalid because t he court did not have the statut ory

a uth or ity to r e nd e r s uch jud g me nt .

. . . Avo ida ble jud g me nt i s o ne wh ic h is fa c ia lly valid and re quires proof bey ond the face of the record or judgme nt to demonstrate its voidableness.” Dykes v. Compton , 97 8 S.W. 2d 52 8, 52 9 (T e nn

. 19 98 ) (c iti ng Ar c he r v . St a te , 851 S.W .2d 157, 161 (Tenn. 1993) ). Thus, a w rit of habe as cor pus is available only

when i t ap p ea rs o n the fa ce of the judgme nt or the re cord that the convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction to convict or sente nce the defe ndant, or that the sentenc e of imprisonment or other restra int ha s expired. Arche r , 851 S.W .2d
a t 16 4; P ott s , 833 S.W .2d at 62. The pe ti ti o n e r b e ar s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e that the
c on vic tio n is vo id o r tha t th e pr iso n term h a s e xpir e d. Pa ssa re lla v. Sta te , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) . Furthermore , the proc edura l require m en t s fo r h abea s corpus re lief ar e mandatory

and must be scr

upulouslyfollowed. Arc her , 851 S.W .2d at 165. I t is permissible for a trial court to summarily dismiss a petiti on of habeas cor pus without the appointment of a lawy er a nd without an evidentiary h ea ri n g i f there is nothing on the fa ce of the judg ment to indicate that the
c on vic tio ns a dd re sse d th e re in a re vo id. Pa ssa

re lla , 89 1 S.W.2 d at 627 ; Rodn e y B uf or d v. St a te , No. M 1 9 9 9 -0 0 4 8 7-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 W L 1131867, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jul y 28, 2000), perm. app. de nied (Jan. 16, 2001). Be cause the determination of whether habea s corpus re lief should be g rante d is a question of law, our revie w is de no vo wi th no pr e su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss. Ha rt v. Sta te , 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)

.
I nit ia lly , th e Cou rt no te s that the Pe tit ion e r in the c a se un de r s ub mis sio n h a s n ot atta c he d to his petition a copy

of the judg ment by which he is being restra ined. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 29-21- 107(b)( 2). The Petiti o n er a sserts that “the Williamson Count y Circuit Court Cl ark, [sic] and the Turney Center I ndustrial State Prison has advise [sic] him that there is no j udg ment of convic tion-4-

as to count three [3] case number 188-108 [Fe lony Murder ].” Howeve r, ther e i s n o p ro o f in the
rec ord to support this claim. Furthe r, the Court is confide nt that t h e C o u rt wo u l d have note d a miss in g ju d g me n t i n th e Pe ti ti o n e r ’ s tw o p r e v io u s ap p e a ls

. A s p r e v io u s ly s tate d , th e p r o c edura l require ments for ha

beas c orpus re lief ar e mandatory and mus t be scrupulouslyfollowed, Ar cher , 851 S.W .2d at 165, and the fa i l u re to comply with statutory

require ments for re lief provides a proper basis for dismissal of the petition, State ex rel. Allen v. J ohnson, 394 S.W .2d 652, 653 (Tenn. 1965)

.
Moreove r, all of the Petitioner’ s claims are either waived by his failure to prope rly

prepa re the re cord on appea l and to proper ly cite to the record, or they lack merit. The Petitioner cla ims that the indictments ag ainst him were f atally defe ctive, but he fails t o include those indictments in the
r e c o r d o n ap p e a l

. T h e p e t i t i o n e r c a r r i e s t h e b u r d e n o f e n s u r i n g t h a tt h e r e c o r d o n ap p e a l c o n v e ys a fa ir, ac curate, and c omplete account of what has transpired with re spect to those issues that ar e the bases of appea l. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b); see also Thompson v. State, 958 S.W .2d 156, 172 (Tenn. Crim. A p p

. 1 9 9 7 )

. T h e f a il u r e to d o s o r e s u lt s in a w a iv e r o f s u c h is s u e s

. I d

. F u rthermor e, the Petitioner fails to make a ny citations in his brief to the re cord to support his c ontentions. See Te nn. Ct. Cr im. Ap p. R. 1 0( b) (s ta tin g “ I ssu e s wh ic h are no t su pp orte d b y arg ume nt, c itatio n to a uth or iti e s, or appr opriate r ef

er en ces to the recor d will be trea ted as wa ived in this court.”). Similarly , the Pe ti ti on er h a s p re c lud e d o ur re vie w o f h is n e xt ar g ume nt, that th e tr ia l c ou rt inf ri ng e d u po n h is constitutional rights by improperly instructing the jury , by failing to include the transcript of the jury ins truc tio n in the app e lla te re c or d an d by fa ili ng to make a ny c itatio ns to the re c or d to su pp ort hi s arg ument.

The Petitioner is next heard t o complain that the trial c ourt enter ed an illeg al judg ment of conviction ag ainst him. However , that judgme nt of conviction is not included in the appe llate re cord
a ndwe are , th e re fo re , u na ble to r e vie w this c la im. Th e Pe tit ion e r n e xt as se rt s th a t he is e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f b e c a us e the tr ia l c ou rt imp ro pe rl y

se nte nc e d hi m as a

Ra ng e I I of fe nd e r t o consec utive sentenc es. This alleg ation, even if proven, me rely

rende rs the judg ments voidable, not void. Finally , the P etitioner claims that he was improperly prec luded from r esponding to the “State’s response ,” which inf

ring ed upon his Due Proc ess rig hts. Fr om our revie w of the r ecor d, howeve r, it appear s that the Petitioner filed his petition, the State responded w ith a motion to di smiss, and the trial court g rante d the State’s motion. W e fa il to see in this procedure any violation of the Pe tit ion e r’ s D ue Pr oc e ss rig hts . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the fore g oing rea soning and authorities, we conclude the Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of ha

beas corpus. According ly , we AF FI RM the trial court’s judg ment dismiss ing his habea s corpus pe tition.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE