State v. Clifford Taylor ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
CLIFFORD L. TAYLOR, )
)
Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9703-CC-00098
)
vs. ) LAUDERDALE COUNTY
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 4885
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion, pursuant to Rule
20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to affirm the judgment of the trial court in
this case by order rather than formal opinion. The above-captioned case represents an
appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
The record was filed on March 7, 1997, and the petitioner filed his brief on April 4, 1997.
The petitioner is currently serving a life sentence, having been found to be a habitual
criminal, pursuant to T.C.A. § 39-1-806 (repealed 1989), in 1980. The petitioner
contends that the enhanced punishment provided by this statute violates the doctrine of
collateral estoppel under the double jeopardy clause of the federal and state
constitutions.
Having reviewed the state’s motion in light of the petitioner’s brief and
response, and the record as a whole, we conclude that the motion is well-taken and
should be granted. In denying the petition, the trial court found that the petitioner had
failed to show “upon the face of the judgment or the record that the proceedings upon
which the judgment [was] rendered that [the] convicting court was without jurisdiction or
authority to sentence [the petitioner] or that [the petitioner’s] sentence of imprisonment
or other restraint has expired.” See State v. Archer, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993).
We agree with the trial court’s ruling. The convicting court in this case
had jurisdiction over both the subject matter and person, and nothing in the record
before us demonstrates that the convicting court’s actions were unauthorized. Nor has
the petitioner shown that his sentence has expired. Accordingly, even if the petitioner’s
claim has merit, such claim renders the judgment voidable, not void, and it may not be
collaterally attacked in a suit for habeas corpus relief. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d
619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). However, this state’s habitual criminal act has been
declared to be constitutional in several cases involving this very issue. See e.g.
Pearson v. State, 521 S.W.2d 225 (Tenn. 1975); Morelock v. State, 454 S.W.2d 189(Tenn. Crim. App. 1970). The court below therefore correctly denied the petitioner the
requested habeas corpus relief.
Accordingly, having reviewed the entire record in light of the petitioner’s
claims, we cannot find any error committed by the trial court in denying the petition. It is
therefore ORDERED that the state’s motion is granted. P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 0 o f t h e
R u le s o f t h e C o u r t o f C r im in a l A p p e a ls , w e a f f ir m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e n ia l o f t h e
p e t i t i o n e r ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s . Costs of this appeal shall be assessed
against the petitioner.
Enter, this the ___ day of May, 1997.
___________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
___________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
___________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
2