Donnell v. Booker v. State of Tennessee, M2017-00378-CCA-R3-HC

In July 2007 Booker pled guilty in Johnson County to possession of 43.7 grams of cocaine with intent to sell (Class B felony) and received an eight-year Range I sentence to be served concurrently with any prior sentences.
The judgment lists the offense date as April 12, 2005. Booker alleged he was serving Davidson County sentences when the offense occurred.
In January 2017 Booker filed a habeas corpus petition arguing the Johnson County sentence was illegal because it should have run consecutively to his prior Davidson County sentences (case nos. 96-A-493 and 2003-D-2866).
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, relying on Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101(b)(1) which bars habeas relief for negotiated pleas claiming concurrent sentences where consecutive sentencing was required by statute.
On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal but on the alternate ground that Booker failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his sentence was illegal; the record lacked facts or documents showing a statutory requirement for consecutive sentencing.

Issue	Booker’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the Johnson County sentence is illegal because it should have been consecutive to prior Davidson County sentences	Booker: He was serving Davidson County sentences when the Johnson County offense occurred, so the Johnson County sentence had to run consecutively	State: Booker gives no authority or proof that consecutive service was required; he benefitted from a negotiated concurrent sentence and is barred by statute	Held: Dismissed — Booker failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that the sentence was illegal; record insufficient to prove statutory requirement for consecutive sentences
Whether Booker’s guilty plea was involuntary and void	Booker: He did not knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently plead to an illegal sentence (argued on appeal)	State: Plea-voluntariness not raised in petition; even if raised, involuntary plea claims render judgments voidable, not void, and are not cognizable in habeas corpus	Held: Waived and/or not cognizable in habeas corpus
Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101(b)(1) bars relief here	Booker: Impliedly argues sentence illegal despite negotiated concurrent term	State: Statute precludes habeas relief for negotiated pleas claiming concurrent sentencing where consecutive required	Held: Court could not apply the statutory bar because record lacked proof that consecutive sentencing was statutorily required; decision rested on insufficiency of evidence instead

Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999) (habeas corpus issues are narrow; writ issues void, not voidable judgments)
Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (habeas relief limited to convictions where court lacked jurisdiction or sentence expired)
Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2000) (petitioner bears burden to prove void judgment by preponderance)
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (illegal sentence claims based on facts not on face of judgment require an adequate record)
Ritchie v. State, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000) (standard for habeas corpus review)
Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005) (habeas corpus may be used to correct illegal sentences)
Burkhart v. State, 566 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn. 1978) (trial court can correct illegal sentence at any time)
State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 424 S.W.2d 186 (Tenn. 1968) (distinguishing void and voidable judgments)