James Shields v. State ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
JAMES SHIELDS, )
July 26, 1999
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9809-CR-00383
Appellant, )
Cecil W. Crowson
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
Appellate Court Clerk
VS. ) (No. 98-C-2220 Below)
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) The Hon. J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
)
Appellee. ) (Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition)
) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state's motion to affirm the judgment
of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
After reviewing the state’s motion, the appellant’s brief, and the record on appeal, the Court
finds that this is an appropriate matter for affirmance under Rule 20.
The petitioner is appealing the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus. In his petition, the petitioner alleged that two prior convictions were void
and improperly used to enhance his sentence in a later conviction. The trial court
summarily dismissed the petition because no record of the named convictions or how they
were used to enhance his subsequent conviction was attached to the petition, nor was a
satisfactory reason given for its absence as mandated by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2).
T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2) provides that if the petitioner in a petition for writ of
habeas corpus is restrained of his liberty "by virtue of any legal process, a copy thereof
shall be annexed, or a satisfactory reason given for its absence." This provision of the
statute is "mandatory and the failure to comply with same may be grounds for dismissing
the petition." State ex rel. Wood v. Johnson, 216 Tenn. 531, 534, 393 S.W.2d 135, 136
(Tenn. 1965); see State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 500, 503, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291
(Tenn. 1964). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition.
In addition, in his appellate brief, the petitioner contends that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. A claim of ineffective counsel may not be litigated in a
habeas corpus proceeding. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 628 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1994). Moreover, this Court has appellate jurisdiction only. T.C.A. § 16-5-108(a). Issues
not raised in the petition cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. ‘
Based on the reasons discussed in this order, this Court concludes that the
state’s motion to affirm the judgment should be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the
judgment pursuant to Rule 20 is granted. The judgment of the trial court is hereby
affirmed. The petitioner being indigent, costs of this appeal are taxed to the state.
_____________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
_____________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-2-