Summary
affirming summary dismissal of a habeas corpus petition alleging that the sentencing court lacked authority to classify and sentence the petitioner as a persistent offender because the petitioner lacked the requisite number of prior felony convictions to support the classification
Summary of this case from Edwards v. StateOpinion
No. 01C01-9801-CR-00022
January 12, 1999
DAVIDSON COUNTY, HONORABLE J. RANDALL WYATT, JR., JUDGE, (Habeas Corpus)
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
FOR THE APPELLANT:
GEORGE EDWARD FRENCH, Pro se, T.D.O.C. No. 107854, R.M.S.I., U-6-B-117.
FOR THE APPELLEE:
JOHN KNOX WALKUP, Attorney General of Tennessee and ELIZABETH B. MARNEY, Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee, VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III, District Attorney General and ELIZABETH B. MARNEY, Assistant District Attorney General.
OPINION
The petitioner, George Edward French, pro se, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the Davidson County Criminal Court. He is presently in prison serving an eighty-year sentence, as a Range II offender, upon his conviction in 1983 for armed robbery. He contends (1) that the sentencing court did not have the authority to sentence him as a Range II, persistent offender because he did not have a sufficient number of prior felony convictions to qualify as such and (2) that insufficient evidence existed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he qualified as a Range II, persistent offender. Also, he seeks the appointment of counsel and oral argument.
A petition for the writ of habeas corpus relative to a person imprisoned pursuant to a judgment of conviction may be brought to contest confinement if the judgment is void or the sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). However, if the claimed illegality renders the judgment or sentence voidable, rather than void, no relief can be granted.Id. at 161. Moreover, claims based upon factual disputes that were already resolved at the sentencing hearing, such as the petitioner's sentencing range, are not subject to relitigation in a habeas corpus proceeding. See State ex rel. Holbrook v. Bomar, 211 Tenn. 243, 247, 364 S.W.2d 887, 889 (1963). Also, absent there being a colorable claim for a writ, there is no need to appoint counsel. Similarly, there is no need for oral argument.
After a full consideration of the record, the briefs, and the law governing the issues presented, we are of the opinion that no error of law exists that would require a reversal and that no precedential value would be derived from the rendering of an opinion. Therefore, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App.
__________________________ Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
__________________________ John H. Peay, Judge
__________________________ Norma Ogle, Judge