Collier v. State ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
JULY SESSION, 1998 August 14, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
EARL E. COLLIER, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9710-CR-00464
)
Appe llant, )
)
) MORGAN COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. E. EUGENE EBLEN
CHARLES JONES, Warden, ) JUDGE
and, S TATE O F TEN NES SEE ,)
)
Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CRIMINAL COURT OF MORGAN COUN TY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
EARL E. COLLIER, Pro Se JOHN KNOX WALKUP
P.O. Box 2000 Attorney General and Reporter
Wartburg, TN 37887-2000
TIMOTHY F. BEHAN
Assistant Attorney General
425 5th Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
CHARLES E. HAWK
District Attorney General
FRANK A. HARVEY
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 703
Kingston, TN 37763
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
OPINION
The Defen dant, Earl E. Collier, appeals as of right the trial court’s dismissal
of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Defendant argues the following four
issue s in this pro se appe al: (1) his convic tions vio late du e proc ess a nd do uble
jeopardy interests relevant to the mu ltiplicitous and facially invalid ind ictmen ts
brought against him; (2) his convictions were due to a violation of his right to the
effective assista nce o f coun sel; (3) his con victions violate his right ag ainst self-
incrimination; and (4 ) the fac ts do n ot sup port his convic tion for aggravated
kidnap ping. W e affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.
According to Def enda nt’s pe tition, on Janu ary 3, 1 990, h e plea ded n olo
contende re to and was convicted of two counts of armed rob bery, two counts of
aggravated kidnapp ing and one co unt of agg ravated a ssault. He received an
effective sentence o f twenty (20) years. T he trial court summarized his numerous
comp laints in his petition as (1) illegal, multiplicitous charges and (2) ineffective
assistance of counsel. The trial court d eterm ined th at the is sues prese nted d id
not me rit habea s corpu s relief.
Habeas corpus relief is available under Tennessee law only when a
convicting court is without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant or
when that defendant’s term of imprisonment or restraint has expired. Archer v.
State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). There is nothing in this record that
demonstrates that the convicting court was without juris diction or a uthority to
sentence the Defe ndant to the effective sentence of twenty years in confinement
-2-
for the convictions which he received on January 3, 1990. The sufficiency of an
indictm ent canno t be tested in a habe as corp us proc eeding . See Hagga rd v.
State, 475 S.W .2d 186 , 187 (T enn. C rim. App . 1971). Because the trial court had
jurisdiction in the case sub judice, Defendant’s other allegations, if meritorious,
would render his convictions voidable rather than void, thus making the issues
inappro priate for habe as corp us relief. See Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619,
627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Furthermore, there is nothing contained in this
record which demonstrates that the Defendant’s term of imprisonment or restraint
has expired. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by
dismissing the Defendant’s petition and denying the Defendant habeas corpus
relief.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
____________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
___________________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
-3-