eligibility rather than the 100% required by the violent offender statute, was illegal and his guilty plea therefore unknowing and involuntary. See Barry Dunham v. State, No. M2000-02557-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 242356, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb.11, 2002). The defendant was subsequently tried before a jury, found guilty of first degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
However, he was later granted post-conviction relief on the basis that his sentence, which was ordered to be served at 85% parole release eligibility rather than the 100% required by the violent offender statute, was illegal and his guilty plea therefore unknowing and involuntary. See Barry Dunham v. State, No. M2000-02557-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 242356, at *1 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb. 11, 2002). The defendant was subsequently tried before a jury, found guilty of first degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The conflict between the plea agreement and the judgment, the petitioner argues, indicate that the sentence is void and thus mandates habeas corpus relief because the "illegality of the sentence is evident on the face of the record." The petitioner relies on Barry Dunham v. State, No. M2000-02557-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 242356 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Nashville, Feb. 11, 2002), to support her argument. In Dunham, the petitioner sought post-conviction relief based on an unknowing or involuntary plea, ineffective counsel, and an illegal sentence.