State v. Marvin Mathews ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
OCTOBER SESSION, 1996 FILED
April 28, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
MARVIN ANTHONY MATHEWS,) Appellate C ourt Clerk
) No. 02C01-9512-CC-00366
Appellant )
) LAUDERDALE COUNTY
vs. )
) Hon. Joseph H. Walker, Judge
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
FRED RANEY, WARDEN ) (Habeas corpus)
)
Appellee )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
MARVIN ANTHONY MATHEWS JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter
Cold Creek Correctional Facility
P. O. Box 1000
Henning, TN 38041-1000 EUGENE J. HONEA
Assistant Attorney General
LISA A. NAYLOR
Legal Assistant
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
AT TRIAL:
CHARLOTTE H. RAPPUHN
Assistant Attorney General
LISA A. NAYLOR
Legal Assistant
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
David G. Hayes
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Marvin Anthony Mathews, appeals the summary dismissal
by the Lauderdale County Circuit Court of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. The appellant is currently incarcerated at the Cold Creek Correctional
Facility in Lauderdale County. In his pro se petition, the appellant states that, in
1984, he was convicted of third degree burglary in the Criminal Court of Shelby
County. The appellant alleges that, following his conviction, he was sentenced
as a “persistent offender and an especially aggravated offender” to ten years
imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction “at fifty (50) percent.”
He further alleges that his status as a “persistent offender and an especially
aggravated offender” was based upon eight prior convictions that have been “set
aside” by this court.1 Thus, the appellant contends that he is serving an
"excessive sentence."2
The trial court dismissed the appellant's petition, finding that the petition
failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Habeas corpus relief
is available in Tennessee only when the face of the judgment or the record of the
proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered reveals that the convicting
court was without jurisdiction or authority over the appellant or that the
appellant's sentence of imprisonment has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d
157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). Moreover, the appellant has the burden of establishing
either a void judgment or the expiration of his sentence by a preponderance of
the evidence. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1994). In the instant case, the appellant alleges only that his sentence is
excessive. Thus, the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s habeas corpus
1
The record does not contain any documentation concerning these prior convictions.
2
In essence, the appellant appears to be challenging his status as a persistent offender of
an esp ecially aggra vated off ense.
2
petition was proper.
Furthermore, the trial court correctly concluded that it was unable to treat
the petition as one for post-conviction relief, because the Circuit Court of
Lauderdale County lacks jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s claim. Petitions for
post-conviction relief must be filed in the court where the conviction occurred.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-204(a) (1995 Supp.).
Finding that no error of law was committed by the trial court and that an
opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm, pursuant to Tenn. Ct. of
Crim. App. Rule 20, the trial court’s dismissal of appellant's petition for a writ of
habeas corpus.
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
_______________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
_______________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
3