Joey Godwin v. State of Tennessee, M2017-00267-CCA-R3-HC

Joey Godwin pleaded guilty in 2007 to three counts of possession with intent to sell >=0.5g cocaine (cases 16769, 16770, 7923) and received an effective concurrent ten-year sentence via plea agreement.
At the times of the subsequent offenses, Godwin had been released on bond/parole in the earlier cases; Tennessee law and Rule 32(c)(2) generally require consecutive service where a felony is committed while on bail.
Godwin later was convicted in 2012 of additional sale offenses (cases 9061, 9088) and received an effective sixty-year sentence; the 2007 convictions were used to enhance those later sentences.
In December 2016 Godwin filed a habeas corpus petition seeking to vacate the 2007 convictions/sentences as void for failing to run consecutively per Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-111(b), and to withdraw his pleas.
The habeas court summarily denied relief, finding the 2007 judgments were valid, the sentences were the product of a negotiated plea (thus voidable, not void), and the sentences had expired; the court applied the rule that habeas corpus is unavailable for expired, voidable judgments used only to enhance later sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2007 concurrent sentences are void under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-111(b) requiring consecutive terms when offense committed while on bail	Godwin: concurrent ten-year sentences violated § 40-20-111(b); therefore judgments are void	State: statutory/consequential error does not render negotiated plea judgments void; moreover sentences have expired and plea was negotiated	Court: Sentences were voidable, not void; habeas relief unavailable because sentences expired and were the product of a negotiated plea
Whether habeas corpus may be used to attack expired convictions used to enhance current confinement	Godwin: seeks vacancy to challenge enhanced sentence	State: Benson/Hickman rule bars habeas when challenged convictions have expired and only serve to enhance current sentence	Court: Follows Benson/Hickman — expired convictions used to enhance do not afford habeas relief

Benson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 27 (Tenn. 2004) (habeas unavailable when challenged convictions have expired and only enhance current sentence)
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (distinguishing void and voidable judgments; voidable judgments require post-conviction, not habeas)
Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (definition of a void judgment where court lacked jurisdiction or authority)
Tucker v. Morrow, 335 S.W.3d 116 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009) (habeas relief available only for void judgments or expired sentences)