George French v. State, Ricky Bell, Warden ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •              IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE                FILED
    DECEMBER 1998 SESSION
    January 12, 1999
    Cecil W. Crowson
    GEORGE EDWARD FRENCH,          )                         Appellate Court Clerk
    )
    Appellant,        )   No. 01C01-9801-CR-00022
    )
    )   Davidson County
    v.                             )
    )    Honorable J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge
    )
    RICKY BELL, Warden,            )    (Habeas Corpus)
    and STATE OF TENNESSEE,        )
    )
    Appellees.        )
    For the Appellant:                 For the Appellee:
    George Edward French, Pro se       John Knox Walkup
    T.D.O.C. No. 107854                Attorney General of Tennessee
    R.M.S.I., U-6-B-117                       and
    7475 Cockrill Bend Road            Elizabeth B. Marney
    Nashville, TN 37209-1010           Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
    425 Fifth Avenue North
    Nashville, TN 37243-0493
    Victor S. Johnson, III
    District Attorney General
    and
    Elizabeth B. Marney
    Assistant District Attorney General
    Washington Sq., 222 2nd Ave. N.
    Nashville, TN 37201-1649
    OPINION FILED:____________________
    AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
    Joseph M. Tipton
    Judge
    OPINION
    The petitioner, George Edward French, pro se, appeals as of right from
    the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the Davidson County Criminal
    Court. He is presently in prison serving an eighty-year sentence, as a Range II
    offender, upon his conviction in 1983 for armed robbery. He contends (1) that the
    sentencing court did not have the authority to sentence him as a Range II, persistent
    offender because he did not have a sufficient number of prior felony convictions to
    qualify as such and (2) that insufficient evidence existed to show beyond a reasonable
    doubt that he qualified as a Range II, persistent offender. Also, he seeks the
    appointment of counsel and oral argument.
    A petition for the writ of habeas corpus relative to a person imprisoned
    pursuant to a judgment of conviction may be brought to contest confinement if the
    judgment is void or the sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 
    851 S.W.2d 157
    , 164
    (Tenn. 1993). However, if the claimed illegality renders the judgment or sentence
    voidable, rather than void, no relief can be granted. Id. at 161. Moreover, claims based
    upon factual disputes that were already resolved at the sentencing hearing, such as the
    petitioner’s sentencing range, are not subject to relitigation in a habeas corpus
    proceeding. See State ex rel. Holbrook v. Bomar, 
    211 Tenn. 243
    , 247, 
    364 S.W.2d 887
    , 889 (1963). Also, absent there being a colorable claim for a writ, there is no need
    to appoint counsel. Similarly, there is no need for oral argument.
    After a full consideration of the record, the briefs, and the law governing
    the issues presented, we are of the opinion that no error of law exists that would require
    a reversal and that no precedential value would be derived from the rendering of an
    2
    opinion. Therefore, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed
    pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App.
    _____________________________
    Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
    CONCUR:
    ____________________________
    John H. Peay, Judge
    _____________________________
    Norma Ogle, Judge
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01C01-9801-CR-00022

Filed Date: 1/12/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014