### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 1, 200 5
AN DR E LA MON T MA YF IELD v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 93-B-687 Seth Nor m an, Jud ge

No. M2004- 01408-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Jul y 18, 2005

The pe titioner appea ls the denial of hi s habea s corpus pe tition, contending that: (1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas; and ( 2 ) t h e judgme nts and sentenc es violated his right to due proce ss. Upon revie w, we conclude that t h e p eti tioner’s classification as a m u l t i ple ra pist is an operation of law and does not re quire a ny notice to the petitioner or any further proce eding s post-trial. As such, the c onvictions and sentenc es ar e not void, and we aff

irm the denial of ha

beas r elief. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., d el i v er ed the opinion of the c ourt, in which A L AN E. G L EN N and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
Andre May field, Mountain City , Tenne ssee, Pro Se

. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , Ass ist a nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. (Torry ) Johns on, I II , D is tr ic t A tt orney

Gene ral; and D an Ha mm, Assist ant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
Fa cts and Proce dural History
On M a y 1 1 , 1 9 9 3 , th e D a v id s o n Co u n ty G r a n d Ju r y

r e tu r n e d a n e ig h t- c o u n t i n d ic tme nt c ha rg ing the pe tit ion e r, An dr e L a mon t May fi e ld, wi th thr e e c ou nts of a g g rava ted ra

pe (a Cla ss A felony ), three counts of ag g ravated kidnapping (a Class B felony ), and two c ounts of ag g ravated robbery (a Class B felony ). On July15, 1993, the petitioner pled g uiltyto thr ee c ounts of ag g ravated
ra pe a nd on e c ou nt of ag g ra vate d r ob be ry . H e wa s se nte nc e d a s a Ra ng e I , s ta nd ardof

fe nd e r t o tw e nty y e ars fo r e a c h c ou nt of a g g ra vate d ra pe a nd te n y e ars fo r a g g ra vate d r ob be ry , a ll c on c ur re nt. I n J anuary

1999, the trial c o u rt wa s i n formed that the petitioner’s sente nce w as illeg al, as he was re qu ir e d to se rv e on e hu nd red per c e nt o f h is i mpo se d s e nte nc e a s a mul tip le ra

pis t, p ur su a nt t oT he t ri al co urt s evered co unt s 1 , 7, and 8 , whi ch i nvo l ved t wo vi ct i m s o t her t han t ho se charged i n t he 1

rem ai ni ng co unt s. T he reco rd r ef l ect s t hat t he p et i t i o ner ul t i m at el y pled gui l t y t o t wo of t he severed co unt s and t hat t he third w a s d ism isse d p u rs u a n t t o the p le a a g re e m e n t. -2- Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 13 -5 23 , r a the r tha n th e imp os e d re le a se e lig ibi lit y of thi rt y perc ent. The pe titioner was appointed c ounsel, an d a “ M o ti o n to Wi thdraw Plea ” wa s filed, which wa s g rante d by

the trial court. There afte r, the tri al co u rt gra n t ed a motion to sever one count e ach of ag g ravated ra

pe, ag g ravated kidnapping , and ag g ravated robbery

. On J uly 1, 1999, the petitioner 1
wa s tri ed o n t h e f

i v e r em ai n i n g co u n t s an d wa s co n v i ct ed o f t wo co u n t s o f a ggra v at ed k i d n ap p i n g, ag g ravated robbe ry , ag g ravated ra pe, and r ape. F ollowing his jury trial, the petitioner wa s sentence d to a tot a l e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

fi fty y e ars . T he jud g me nts of the tr ia l c ou rt

we re a ff ir me d b y this court upon the modification that the petitioner be sente nced a s a Rang e I I , multipl e ra p i s t on the
c ha rg e of ra pe . Se e State v. An dr e L . M a y fi e ld, No . M 19 99 -0 24 15 -C CA -R 3- CD , 2 00 1 T e nn . Crim. App. LEXI S 429 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Na shville, J une 11, 2001).
On J anuary

16, 2 0 0 4 , t h e p etitioner filed a petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus, in which he
c on te nd e d th a t: (1) The judg ments enter ed in J uly 1999 wer e void beca use the trial c ourt lacke d bo th s ub je c t matte r andpe rs on a l ju ri sd ic tio n; (2) The judg ments were obtained in violation of the petitioner’s rights unde r the Double Jeopardy

Clause; (3 ) Th e c on vic tio ns a ndse nte nc e s w e re vo id a s v iol a tiv e of du e pr oc e ss; (4) The pe titioner was denie d the rig ht to testify ; and (5 ) Th e pe tit ion e r w a s d e nie d e ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l.

I n denying the petition, the habea s court found that the first cla im was without merit and that the re maining c ontentions w ere constitutional in nature and would be more appropriately addre ssed in a cl a im fo r pos t- c on vic tio n re lie f. Th e pe tit ion e r n ow app e a ls t o th is c ou rt , li mit ing his c la ims to t h e f o l l o wi n g: (1) that the trial court l ac k ed subj ect matter jurisdiction because it did not have la wf ul a uth ority to g rant the mot ionto w ith dr a w the prev iousl y e nte re d g uil ty pleas; and (2) that the judg ments and sentenc es we re imposed i n violation of his right to due proce ss bec au s e: (a) he wa s not give n notice of the enhanc ement in the ind ic tme nts ; a nd (b ) he wa s n ot g ive n a bif ur c a te d tria l in wh ic h th e jury c ou ld determine bey ond a re asonable doubt t h at h e had the requisite pre vious conviction(s). Upon thoroug h revie w, we c onclude that the pe titioner’s c la im s a r ew it h o u t m erit. Ther efor e, we a ffirm the ha

beas c ourt’s denia l of relief

.-3- An a ly sis
Article I , § 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es the rig ht to seek habe as cor pus relief

. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 29-21-101 et seq. codify the applica

ble proc edure s for see king
a writ. W hile there is no statutory time limi t in which to file for ha beas corpus relief, Tennessee la w provides very

narr ow g rounds upon which suc h relief may be granted. Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. A habea s corpus petition may be used only

to contest void judgme nts that are fac ially invalid because: (1) the convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence a def endant; or ( 2) the de fendant’s sentenc e has e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993)

. The pe titioner first contends that the tria l court wa s without jurisdiction to g rant the motion t o w i t h d r a w t h e p r i o r

g u i l t y p l e a s b e c au s e t h e p r e v i o u s j u d g m e n t s h a d b e c o m e f i n a l , a s t h i r t y d a ys had passe d since their e ntry . See B oy d v
. S t at e, 5 1 S .W.3d 206, 210 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). Howeve r, i t i s we ll-settled that “a trial judge may corr ect a n illega l, as opposed to an e rrone ous sentenc e at a ny

time, even if it has become final.” State v. B urkhart, 566 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978). I n the pre sent ca se, the trial c ourt properly rec og nized that the pl ea ag ree ment betwee n the petitioner and the State was in dir ect contra vention of a statute, the reby rende ring it ill eg al and void. See Mar k L . Grim es v
. Fr ed Rainey , No. W2002-01583-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 688 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Aug . 5, 2003). Additionally , the petitioner a rg ues that t

h emu lt ip le rapist statute, codifie d at Tenne ssee Code Annotated 39- 13-523, did not apply “bec ause the State never

soug ht, nor did the g rand jury return, an indictm ent gra nting jurisdiction to the trial court to use the enha nceme nt statute as re quired by T.C.A. 40-35-203( e).” Howeve r, the pe titi oner’ s relianc e on sec tion 40-35-203(e ) is misplaced. Th a t se c tio n s ta te s, in p e rt ine nt p art : (e) I f the criminal offe nse for which the defe ndant is c harg ed car ries an en h an ced punishment for a se cond or subsequent violation of the same off ense, the indictment in a sepa rate count shall specif

y and cha rg e such fac t. I f the de fendant is convicted of the off ense, the n the jury must find that bey ond a rea sonable doubt the de fendant has bee n previously

convicted the requisit e number of times for the same offe nse. Upon such f

i n d ing, the defendant shall be subject to the authorized terms of imprisonment for the felonies and misdeme anors as set forth i n § 40-35-111. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-203(e ) (emphasis added)

. As noted, this section ref ere nces se ction 40-35- 111, which pertains to the terms of imprisonment and fines for e ach pa rticular c lass of fe lony

and mis de me a no r. B y

c on tr a st, se c ti on 39 -1 3- 52 3 p ro vid e s th at a se nte nc e imp os e d u po n o ne wh o is classified as a mul tiple rapist i s to be serve d at one hundr ed per cent, “ undiminis hed by any sentenc e reduc tion credits such pe rson may be elig ible for or earn.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 523 (2004). There fore , the two statutes dea l with two differe nt types of e nhance ments.
I n the pre sent ca se, the pe titioner’s convictions re ndere d him “‘a multiple rapist’ a s a matter of la w, ” a ndne ith e r the pr os e c uto r n or the jud g e c ou ld d e viate fr om the re le a se e lig ibi lit y require ment. Mark A. Percy v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., No. M2001-01629-COA-R3-CV, 2003 Tenn.-4-

App. LEXI S 154, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App., at Na shville, Feb. 26, 2003) . There fore , the State was not re qu ir e d to g ive no tic e of

the po te nti a l app lic abil ity of the statut e in the ind ic tme nt i n o rd e r f or it t o app ly . B y

its plain t e rm s, the re le a se e lig ibi lit y re qu ir e me nt i s mand a tory a ndauto ma tic a lly applicable to persons who c ome within its purview. As such, t he trial court had the authorityand, in f a c t, w a s mand a te d to a c c e pt the pe tit ion e r’ s mot ion to w ith dr a w h is i lle g a l pl e a s a ndpr oc e e d to trial.
Se c on d a ndfi na lly , th e pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t the jud g me nts a ndse nte nc e s impo se d p os ttr ia l vi olate d h is rig hts to d ue pr oc e ss b e c aus e : ( 1) hewa s n ot g ive n n oti c e of the mul tip le ra

pis t statute in the indictments; and (2) he was not g rante d a bifurcated trial in which the jury could have determined bey ond a re asonable doubt whether or not he ha d the re quisite number of prior convictions to be cla ssified as a multiple ra pist. S ee T enn. Code Ann. 40- 35-203(e ) (2004)

. We likew ise conclude that this c laim must fail for the same rea son as the first. The pe titioner became subject to the statute by virtue of his multiple convictions. Moreove r, b ec au s e his init ial
se nte nc e s d id n ot c omp ly

wi th a statut ory re qu ir e me nt, the y we re ill e g a l a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y allowed the pe titioner to w ithdraw his ple as and proce ed to trial. Once the petitioner wa s tried and
c on vic te d, he wa s no t e nti tle d to a ny fu rthe r pr oc e e din g re g ard ing his re le a se e lig ibi lit y . We re ite rate that the petitioner was a multipl e rapist “as a matter of law,” and no deviation is a llowed from the statutory provision gove rning his sentence . Percy , 2003 Tenn. App. L EXI S 154, at *3. T here fore , this arg ument is likewise without merit.
Conclusion
We affirm the habea s court’s de nial of re lief.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE