Offender. This Court Affirmed The Appellant'S Sentences, State v. James T. Fite, No. 89

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: March 10, 1998
• Docket: 01C01-9708-CR-00377
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED March 10, 1998 JAMES T. FITE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9708-CR-00377 Cecil W. Crowson Appellant, ) Appellate Court Clerk ) DAVIDSON COUNTY VS. ) (No. 2622 Below) ) KENNETH LOCKE, WARDEN, ) The Hon. Seth Norman ) Appellee. ) (Denial of Habeas Corpus Petition) ) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the

judgment in the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of

Criminal Appeals Rules. Finding that the trial court properly held that the appellant failed

to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, we grant the state’s motion to affirm

the judgment pursuant to Rule 20.

It appears that the appellant pled guilty in Dekalb County to vehicular

homicide, aggravated assault, and felony bail jumping. He was sentenced to serve

consecutive sentences of eleven, three, and three years, respectively, as a Range I

offender. This Court affirmed the appellant’s sentences, State v. James T. Fite, No. 89-

218-III (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 25, 1990), and subsequently, this Court

affirmed the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief, James T. Fite v. State, No. 01C01-

9209-CC-00271 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 9, 1993), p.t.a. denied, (Tenn. Feb.

7, 1994).

The appellant contends that he was never properly charged with felony bail

jumping and that his sentence credits have not been calculated properly, thus making his

sentences expired and his plea bargain violated. In denying relief, the trial court held:

There is nothing in this petition from which the Court could conclude that the sentences discussed are, in fact, void. There is nothing in this petition from which the Court could conclude that the petitioner is being illegally detained. After a careful reading of this petition, this Court is of the opinion that the matters raised in the petition should have been questioned in a Post Conviction Relief Petition. As far as this Court can tell, the statute of limitations has long since barred in such petition.

It is a well-established principle of law that the remedy of habeas corpus is

limited in its nature and its scope. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 161-162 (Tenn.1993);

Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 626 (Tenn. Crim. App.1994). In Tennessee, habeas

corpus relief is available only if "'it appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of

the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered,' that a convicting court was without

jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant's sentence of

imprisonment or other restraint has expired." Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164

(Tenn.1993) (citation omitted in original). The appellant has the burden of establishing

either a void judgment or an illegal confinement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Passarella, 891 S.W.2d at 627. If he successfully carries his burden, the appellant is

entitled to immediate release. Id. We find that the appellant has failed to sustain his

burden.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. The petitioner

being indigent, costs are taxed to the state.

ENTER, this the ____ day of __________, 1998.

_____________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

(not participating)_______________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

_____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

-2-