State v. Michael Martin ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
MICHAEL MARTIN, )
)
Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9804-CC-00101
)
vs. ) LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
)
) No. 98-7769
)
FILED
Respondent. ) August 12, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon motion of the state to affirm the
judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
This case represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter in 1996 and
received a ten year sentence. No appeal was taken. In his present petition, the
petitioner claims that counsel did not fully explain the conditions of his plea. The trial
court found that “[t]he petitioner’s allegations as to what his counsel did or did not tell
him is not proper subject for habeas corpus relief.”
Habeas corpus relief is available in Tennessee only when “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). Since the challenge to the guilty
plea in this case would necessarily involve investigation beyond the face of the
judgment or record, the trial court properly denied habeas corpus relief. See id.
In his brief on appeal, the petitioner contends that the trial court should
have treated the petition as one for post-conviction relief. See T.C.A. § 40-30-205(c).
This contention is without merit. A petition for post-conviction relief must be filed with
the court in which the conviction occurred. T.C.A. § 40-30-204(a). Judgment in this
case was rendered in Shelby County, however, this petition was filed in Lake County.
Furthermore, judgment in this case became final on April 29, 1996, and this petition
was filed on March 9, 1998. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for filing a petition for
post-conviction relief had expired. T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a). The petitioner’s claim that
the statute did not begin to run until he was denied release on parole is without merit.
See Cox v. State, No. 02C01-9508-CR-00221 (Tenn. Crim. App., May, 30, 1997).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that the
state’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance
with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
_________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
_________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
_________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
2