Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
Assigned on Briefs February 1, 2005 GARY WALLACE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County No. 13378 Jim T. Hamilton, Judge

No. M2004-01534-CCA-R3-HC - Filed March 17, 2005

The petitioner appeals the trial court's dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he contended that his sentence violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he was classified as both a Range II, persistent offender and a Class X offender. We conclude that the petitioner was properly sentenced based upon both the classification of the offense (Class X) and the offender classification (Range II, persistent). As such, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the habeas petition. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER , JJ., joined. Gary Wallace, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; and Richard H. Dunavant, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Facts and Procedural History The petitioner, Gary Wallace, was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery in April of 1985. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, persistent offender to life imprisonment. On March 2, 2004, the petitioner filed a pro se "petition for state writ of habeas corpus," in which he contended that the sentence he received violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he was classified as both a Range II, persistent offender and a Class X offender. Therefore, the petitioner averred that the sentence issued was void. In response, the State filed a motion to dismiss, which was ultimately granted by the trial court on April 12, 2004. On April 14,

2004, the petitioner filed an "answer in opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss." Thereafter, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal to this Court.1 Analysis A habeas corpus petition may be used only to contest void judgments that are facially invalid because (1) the convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or (2) the defendant's sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). By contrast, a voidable conviction or sentence is one that is facially valid and thus requires proof beyond the face of the record or judgment to establish its invalidity. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). The burden of proving that the judgment or sentence is void, rather than voidable, rests with the petitioner. Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). "To establish that the judgment is void, the petitioner must prove that a jurisdiction defect appears in the record of the original trial." Dixon v. Holland, 70 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tenn. 2002) (emphasis added). The State initially contends that the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory statutory requirements applicable to habeas corpus petitions. See Tenn. Code Ann.

Download WallaceG.pdf

Tennessee Law