Opinion
No. M2007-01640-CCA-R3-HC.
Assigned on Briefs December 18, 2007.
Filed April 25, 2008.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hickman County; No. 07-5028C; Timothy Easter, Judge.
Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed.
Rodney J. Campbell, Only, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General Reporter; Rachel West Harmon and Mark A. Fulks, Assistant Attorneys General, attorneys for appellee, State of Tennessee.
D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which James Curwood Witt, Jr., and Alan E. Glenn, JJ., joined.
OPINION
The pro se petitioner, Rodney Campbell, appeals as of right the Hickman County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition alleges that his twenty-five-year sentence for second degree murder is void because it violatesBlakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. Following our review, we affirm the habeas corpus court's judgment.
The record reflects that the petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and kidnapping following a jury trial in Davidson County Criminal Court. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to twenty-five years and six years, respectively, to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of thirty-one years. This court affirmed the petitioner's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Rodney J. Campbell, No. M2004-02088-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 2205855 (Tenn.Crim.App. Sept. 7, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Tennessee law provides that "[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of his liberty under any pretense whatsoever . . . may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101. Habeas corpus relief is limited and available only when it appears on the face of the judgment or the record of proceedings below that a trial court was without jurisdiction to convict the petitioner or that the petitioner's sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). To prevail on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a judgment is void or that a term of imprisonment has expired. See State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291-92 (1964). If a petition fails to state a cognizable claim, it may be dismissed summarily by the trial court without further inquiry. See State ex rel. Byrd v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 476, 483, 381 S.W.2d 280, 283 (1964); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109. We note that the determination of whether to grant habeas corpus relief is a matter of law; therefore, we will review the habeas corpus court's finding de novo without a presumption of correctness.McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001).
The petitioner alleges that his sentences are void because they were imposed in contravention of Blakely. This court has consistently held that Blakely challenges are not cognizable in collateral proceedings.See Billy Merle Meeks v. Ricky J. Bell, Warden, 2007 WL 4116486, No. M2005-00626-CCA-R3-HC, at *12 (Tenn.Crim.App. Nov. 13, 2007),perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. April 7, 2008). Therefore, we conclude that the habeas court properly dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the summary dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was proper. The judgment of the habeas court is affirmed.