Jeffrey Yates v. Randy Lee, Warden, E2017-00201-CCA-R3-HC

Petitioner Jeffrey Yates filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his 2003 aggravated robbery judgment (30-year sentence) as void because it does not state whether the sentence is concurrent or consecutive to a 1993 eighteen-year sentence for especially aggravated kidnapping.
Yates alleges he was on parole from the 1993 sentence when he committed the 2003 offense, which would trigger mandatory consecutive service under the rules.
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition for failing to state a cognizable habeas claim; Yates appealed.
The State moved for affirmance under Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20; the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the matter de novo because habeas determinations present questions of law.
The court considered whether silence in the 2003 judgment regarding consecutive service rendered the judgment void and eligible for habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2003 aggravated robbery judgment is void because it does not specify consecutive or concurrent service with the 1993 sentence	Yates: omission renders the 2003 judgment void; habeas relief proper	State: Rule 32(c)(3) makes sentences for felonies committed while on parole consecutive even if judgment is silent, so judgment is not void	Court: Judgment not void; habeas relief denied

Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (habeas corpus relief presents a question of law reviewed de novo)
Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2000) (petitioner bears burden to show sentence is void or confinement illegal)
Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1999) (habeas relief available only when judgment is void on its face)
Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910 (Tenn. 2000) (void judgment defined where court lacked jurisdiction or sentence expired)
Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. 2005) (absence of explicit consecutive order does not entitle petitioner to habeas relief when statute or rule mandates consecutive service)