### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

AR NOL D C AR TER

v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Monroe C ounty No. 03-149 R. Ste ven Bebb, Ju dge

No
. E 2 0 0 3 -0 2 8 8 7 -C CA -R 3 -PC Marc h 16, 2004
The pe titioner, Arnold Carter , appea ls the trial court' s dismis sal of his peti t i o n for wr it of habea s corpus. The State has filed a motion re q u es t i n g that this Court di smiss t he appe al or, in the alternative, aff

irm the trial cour

t's de nial of re lief pursua

nt to Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petitioner ha s not established a va lid c laim f or habea s corpus relief

. Acc ording ly , the State' s motion i s g rante d and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua ntto Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

G AR Y R. W ADE , P. J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Arnold Carte r, Pikeville, Tennesse e, pro se

.
Pa ul G . Summe rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rter; John

H. B le ds oe , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; J ames W. Pope, I I I , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION

This court s et fo rt h the proc edura l history of the pe titioner’s ca se in a pre vious opinion
a ff ir min g the de nia l of

po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f :

I n J anuar y 1 9 7 2, the appe llant was convic ted of robbe ry in the state of Kentucky and rec eived a life sentenc e. Whil e serving this sente nce, he wa s indicted for murde r and r obbery

in Monroe County , Tenne ssee. Therea fter, the Gover nor of Tenne ssee a

nd the Gover

nor of Kentucky enter ed into an executive ag ree ment, the pe rt ine nt p art

of wh ic h is a s f

oll ow s: NOW THEREFORE, pur suant to the crimi nal extradition laws of T e n n e s s e e a

n d K e n tu c ky, r e s p e c t i v e l y,-2- I T I S MUTUAL L Y AGREED, that in consideration of the retur n of
sa id f u g it iv e s to th e St a te o f

T e n n e s s e e , a s a f

o r e s a id b e f o r e the
c on c lus ion

of the ir te rm s o f i mpr iso nme nt i n th e Ke nt ucky State Pe nit e nti ary , Ly on County , E dd y vil le , K e ntu c ky , th a t th e sa id fug itives w ill be returne d to sa id pr ison a t the expense of the State of Tennes s ee as soon as the a fore said prosec ution in the St ate of Tenne ssee is terminate d.

The a ppellant was c onvicted in Tenne ssee of murder in the first degree and
rec eived a

sentenc e of de ath. Howe ver, instea d of beingreturne dto the state of Kentucky immediately af

t er h i s trial in Tennesse e, the a ppellant was taken to the Te nn e ssee S tat e Pe nit e nti ary wh e re he re ma ine d f

or a pe ri od of fo rt y -o ne da y s. Tenne ssee of

ficials then a

ppare ntly discovere d their er

ror a nd an executive orde r wa s issued returningthe appe llant to Kentucky

.

. . . . The appellant' s trial was c ompleted on May 10, 1972, at which time judg ment was imposed. He was tra

nsfer red to the pe nitentiary

the next day

and wa s returne d to Kentucky

on J une 21, 1972.

Carter v. State, 600 S.W

. 2d 750, 751-52 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1980)(f ootnotes omitted). The Gove rnor subsequently

commuted the petitioner’s death sentenc e and he wa s rese ntence d to ninety -nine y ear s imprisonment.

On Au g us t 13 , 2 00 3, the pe tit ion e r fi le d a pe tit ion fo r wri t of

ha be a s c or pu s a lle g ingthat hi s sentenc e e xp ir e d a

n d th e St a te o f T e n n e s s e e lo s t ju r is d ic ti o n o v e r h im o n Ju n e 2 1 , 1 972, when Te nn e sse e Go ve rn or

Winf ie ld D unn “ re le a se d” hi m to K e ntu c ky “ by e xec uti ve or de r o f t ime cut/time served” afte r his trial court pr ocee dings in Monr oe County had conc luded. The pe titioner
rea sons that after

J une 21, 1972, no valid judg ment, including the Aug ust 9, 1972, commutation, could have been entere d ag ainst him. The petitioner conc ludes that he wa s “ef fec tively kidnapped” f r o mK e n tu c ky i n1 9 8 2 w h e nh e w a s a p p ar e n t l y r e tur

n e d t o T e n n e s s e e t o b e g i ns e r v i n g h i s n i n e tynine y ear Monroe County

sentenc e.
On Octobe r 27, 2003, the trial c ourt dismissed the petition, finding t hat the petitioner ha d not established either

an expired sentenc e or a void judgment. The rec ord re flec ts t h at t he petitioner filed not ice of appea l on Dec ember 1, 2003. The state a sserts that the appe al should be dismissed
a s unti me ly

fi le d o r, in t

he a lte rn a tiv e , the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt summa ri ly a ff ir me d. In r e sp on se to the motion to di smiss, t he petitioner ha s submitt ed a pur ported c opy

of a por tion of the prison log book whi ch re fl ec t s that the petitioner submitted a docume nt which he a lleg es wa s his notice of
a pp e a l to pr iso n a

uth or iti e s f

or ma ili ngto t

he tr ia l c ourt

c le rk on No ve mbe r 25, 20 03 , at 8: 40 a .m. Th e c ou rt c on c ludes th at a lt ho ugh t he u ncer ti fi ed, un sw orn do cum ent do es n otcon clu si vel y est a bli sh that notice of a

ppeal wa s timely

filed, the re quirement should be wa ived purs u an t t o Ru le 4(b),-3-

T

. R

. A

. P

. , i n v i e w o f

t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s p r o s e s t a tu s an d t h e f a c tt h a tt h e n o t i c e w a s a tm o s ts i x d ays late and at best, timely

submitt ed to prison authorities for mailing. See Tenn. S. Ct. R. 28, § 2(G) (providing that paper s filed by a pro se petitioner incar cer ated in a corr ectional f

acility are considere d tim e ly fi le d " if the pa pe rs we re de liv e re d to the a pp ro pr ia te ind ivi du a l at th e c or

re c tio na l f

a c ili ty within the time fix ed for

filing" ).

Addre ssing the me rits of the petit i o n er 's appea l, in this state, “[a]ny person imprisoned or
r e s tr a in e d o f h is li b e rty , u n d e r

an y p r e te n s e w h a ts o e v e r , e xc e p t [ th o s e h e ld u n d e r f e d e r a l a u th o r it y ], may prosec ute a wr it of habea s corpus to inquire into the ca use of suc h imprisonment and restra int.” Church v. State, 987 S.W. 2d 855, 857 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1998) ; Tenn. Code Ann. §29- 21-101. The purpose of

a habe as cor

pus petition is to c ontest void a nd not me rely voidable judgme nts. A rche r v. State, 851 S.W . 2d 157, 163 (Tenn. 1993) (citing State ex re l. N ewsom v. Hende rson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W . 2d 186, 189 (1968)) . Habe as cor pus relief is available only when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re co rd that the trial cour t was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the defe ndant or that his s entenc e has e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W . 2d at 164. A petition seeking iss ua nc e of a wr it o f ha

be a s c or pu s ma y be summa

ri ly dis mis se d b y

a tr ia l c ourt

if it f a ils to i nd ic a te that the petitioner' s conviction is void. Tenn. Code Ann. §29-21- 109. The pe titioner aver s that he has be en unable to loc at e a J u n e 21, 1972, ex ecutive or der by which his initial sen t ence of death was “c ommuted” as “ time cut/time served,” thus leavingthe Go v e r n o r o f T e n n e s s e e w i t h o u t a u t h o r i ty t o c o m mu t e h i s d e a th s e n t e n c e t o n i n e ty - n i ne y e a rs in Aug ust 1 9 7 2

. T h e b u r d e n is o n th e p e ti ti o n e r to e s ta b li s h th a t th e ju d g me n t is v o id o r that the sentenc e has expired. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Boma r, 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W. 2d 290, 291-92 (1 96 4) . T he pet it io ne r h a s n ot e sta bli sh e d th at he is e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f. Th e state sug g ests that it would have been “ludicrous” for the g overnor s to ag ree at the outset that the pe titioner would be extradited fr om Kentucky to Tennesse e for prosec ution, and to also agree that Tenne ssee wo uld the n lo se jur isd ic tio n ove r t he pe tit ion e r f

oll ow inghis c on vic tio n a

nd re tur n to Ke ntu c ky . T his court conclude s that there is nothing to suppor t the petitioner’s asser

tions. Moreove r, t h i s court
a ff ir me d th e pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio n a nd his nin e ty -nin e y e ar, c omm ute d s e nte nc e on

dir e c t a pp e a l. See Carte r v. State, No. 23, Monroe County (Tenn.Crim.App. at Knox ville, May 9, 1973), app. de nied (Tenn. 1973) . We thus conclude that the tria l court prope rly dismiss ed the ha

beas c orpus petition.

Ac c or din g ly , th e state ’s motio n is grant e d. Th e jud g me nt o f t he tr ia l c ourt

is a ff ir me d in
acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ G A RY R

. W A D E , P R E S ID IN G J U D G E