Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON
PATRICK STEWART v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County No. 5967 Joe H. Walker, Judge

No. W2005-01843-CCA-R3-HC - Filed November 17, 2005

The Petitioner, Patrick Stewart, appeals the lower court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals ALAN E. GLENN , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID G. HAYES AND J.C. MCLIN , JJ. joined. Patrick Stewart, pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 15, 1991, Petitioner Patrick Stewart entered guilty pleas to one count of first degree murder and one count of aggravated rape. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of life

1

imprisonment and fifteen years for the respective convictions. The Petitioner is currently confined at West Tennessee State Penitentiary in Henning, Tennessee. On May 30, 2005, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. As grounds for issuance of the writ, the Petitioner claimed that his sentence is void because the trial court failed to comply with the Rule 11, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, he asserts the trial court was "not in possession to accept a guilty plea from a defendant without first complying with the law himself, which removes his jurisdiction to hear the plea, and makes any subsequent sentence illegal and void." The trial court considered the petition and, by order entered June 30, 2005, denied relief. In its order denying issuance of the writ, the trial court noted that the Petitioner had failed to attach a copy of the judgment to his petition. The court further found that the Petitioner's sentences had not expired and that the "Criminal Court has jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant to the sentence he received." The trial court concluded that "[h]abeas corpus relief was not appropriate." The trial court further determined that, if the petition was considered as one seeking post-conviction relief, the petition was time-barred. A notice of appeal document was timely filed on July 29, 2005. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the lower court's denial of habeas corpus relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. As basis for its motion, the State asserts that the Petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for habeas corpus relief. Additionally, the State contends that the Petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner has filed a response in opposition to the State's motion. In his response, the Petitioner attaches copies of his judgments of conviction. We initially note, as properly argued by the State, that the Petitioner failed to attach copies of the judgments of conviction to his petition for habeas corpus relief filed in the trial court. See T.C.A.

Download StewartPatrickopn.pdf

Tennessee Law