Amos Curtis Copeny v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: August 15, 1997
• Docket: 01C01-9606-CR-00240
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED JUNE 1997 SESSION August 15, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk AMOS CURTIS COPENY, ) No.01C01-9606-CR-00240 ) Appellee ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY V. ) ) HON. THOMAS H. SHRIVER, STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Habeas Corpus) ) )

For the Appellant: For the Appellee:

Geoffrey Coston John Knox Walkup 2813 West End Avenue Attorney General and Reporter Nashville, TN 37203 Daryl J. Brand Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Victor S. Johnson, III District Attorney General

Pamela S. Anderson Assistant District Attorney Washington Square, Suite 500 222 Second Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37201

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

William M. Barker, Judge OPINION

The appellant, Amos Curtis Copeny, appeals as of right the denial by the

Davidson County Criminal Court of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The

petition alleges that appellant is serving a sixty (60) year sentence as a career

offender for a 1991 second degree murder conviction. He argues in his petition that

the statutory sentencing scheme violates the separation of powers clause of the

Tennessee Constitution. See Tenn. Const. art. II, §§1 & 2. He also contends that the

sentencing statutes violate the prohibition against indeterminate sentences. See

Tenn. Code Ann. §40-35-211 (1990). We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s

petition pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Permitting the judiciary to place offenders within legislatively-defined range

classifications which determine punishment and release eligibility does not violate the

separation of powers. Likewise, we cannot agree that the range classifications

coupled with release eligibility dates render an offender’s sentence indeterminate.

These very arguments advanced by appellant have been rejected by panels of this

Court on numerous occasions. See Kenneth Steele v. State, No. 01C01-9512-CC-

00409 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, April 30, 1997); Steve L. Bryant v. State, No.

01C01-9605-00190 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, April 24, 1997); William Lee Tollett

v. State, No. 01C01-9605-CR-00180 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, April 24, 1997);

Jackie Lee Childs v. State, No. 01C01-9604-CR-00164 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville,

April 24, 1997); Eric C. Pendleton v. State, No. 01C01-9604-CR-00158 (Tenn. Crim.

App. at Nashville, February 12, 1997); Frank Bell v. Ricky Bell, Warden and State of

Tennessee, No. 01C01-9602-CR-00058 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, January 30,

1997), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1997). See also Joe Thomas Baker, Jr. v.

State, No. 01C01-9604-CR-00129 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, February 20, 1997)

(rejecting argument on indeterminate sentences), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn.

1997); Terry Merrell v. State, No. 01C01-9604-CR-00147 (Tenn. Crim. App. at

2 Nashville, February 20, 1997) (rejecting argument on indeterminate sentences).

Similarly, appellant’s arguments are without merit.

Finding that no error of law was committed by the trial court and that an opinion

would have no precedential value, the dismissal of appellant’s habeas corpus petition

is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

_______________________________ William M. Barker, Judge

CONCUR:

____________________________ Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge

____________________________ Thomas T. Woodall, Judge