Terrance Lavar DAVIS v. STATE of Tennessee.
No. M2007-02723-CCA-R3-CD
Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville.
May 7, 2010.
313 S.W.3d 751
Feb. 11, 2010 Session.
Jay Norman, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Terrance Lavar Davis.
OPINION
CORNELIA A. CLARK, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., and SHARON G. LEE, JJ., joined. SHARON G. LEE, J., filed a concurring opinion. GARY R. WADE, J., filed an opinion concurring separately, in which JANICE M. HOLDER, C.J., joined.
We granted permission to appeal in this habeas corpus case to address the legality of a plea-bargained sentence requiring the defendant, being sentenced for two cocaine offenses committed in a school zone, to serve twenty-two years of a Range I sentence at “100%.” The defendant alleges that his sentence is illegal because it makes no provision for the possibility of early release on parole. The trial court denied relief. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. We hold that the defendant‘s sentence is not illegal, and he is therefore not entitled to habeas corpus relief. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Factual and Procedural Background
The defendant Terrance Lavar Davis (“Defendant“) was chаrged with (1) felonious possession of over twenty-six grams of cocaine in a school zone; (2) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; (3) delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine in a school zone; and (4) delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine.1 Defendant pleaded guilty to the first and third of these charges and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of twenty-two years;2 the remaining two counts were dismissed. In conjunction with entering his pleas, Defendant signed two petitions to enter a plea of guilty in which he acknowledged that he was subject to being sentenced as a Range II offender. Pursuant to his plea agreement, however, Defendant was actually sentenced as a Range I offender. Each of the petitions to enter a plea of guilty bears the notation “(EFFECTIVE SENTENCE 22 YRS @ 100%).” Further, each of the two judgments of conviction bears the notation “100%” entered by hand in the same line indicating that Defendant was sentenced to incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC“).
Although the transcript of the plea hearing is not in the record,3 we have gleaned some additional background from
Following his unsuccessful effort to obtain post-conviction relief, Defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 9, 2007. Defendant admits in his petition that, pursuant to his plea agreement, “his sentences are to be served with a release eligibility set at one hundred percent,” but contends that a 100% release eligibility renders his judgments and sentences void and illegal. The trial court denied relief, but the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that Defendant‘s sentences are illegal and remanded. Davis v. State, No. M2007-01729-CCA-R3-HC, 2008 WL 1958174, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. May 6, 2008). This Court granted the State‘s application for permission to appeal and remanded the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeals for reconsideration in light of our decision in Edwards v. State, 269 S.W.3d 915 (Tenn.2008). Davis v. State, No. M2007-01729-SC-R11-HC (Tenn. Jan. 5, 2009). Following remand and reconsideration, the Court of Criminal Appeals again reversed the trial court and remanded. Davis v. State, No. M2009-00011-CCA-RM-HC, 2009 WL 961777, at *4 (Tenn.Crim.App. April 8, 2009). We granted the State‘s application for permission to appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether to grant relief upon review of a petition for habeas corpus is a question of law. Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn.2000). Accordingly, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness given to the conclusions of the court below. Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn.2005).
ANALYSIS
This case requires us once again to examine a particular sentence and determine whether it is beyond a trial court‘s jurisdiction to impose and therefore requires us to grant habeas corpus relief. A brief review of our statutory sentencing schemе and the principles of habeas corpus jurisprudence as applied to sentences is helpful to our analysis.
I. Statutory Sentencing Scheme
A. Range Classification
Under the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989,
The classification of a defendant for sentencing range purposes is significant because the higher ranges carry longer sentence terms. For instance, the Range I sentence for a Class A felony is fifteen to twenty-five years.
Once the appropriate range is determined, and after considering any mitigating and enhancement factors that apply, the trial court imposes a specific term of years within that range.
B. Early Release
1. Parole
The sentencing range is important for another reason. For most felonies, a defendant ordered to serve his or her sentence incarcerated in the TDOC becomes eligible for early release on parole5 upon reaching his or her “release eligibility date” (“RED“).
Significantly to this case, a defendant‘s RED may also be determined by plea bargain. As we observed in McConnell, 12 S.W.3d at 798, “the legislature‘s failure to limit the use of offender classification and release eligibility as plеa bargaining tools evinced the legislature‘s intent to permit the practice.” (citing Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tenn.1997)). And, this Court has made clear that a defendant may plea bargain for a RED that is inconsistent with the sentencing range agreed to. Hicks, 945 S.W.2d at 706. Thus, a defendant may agree to a “hybrid” sentence which combines, for instance, a Range I offender classification with a Range II RED. Id.
2. Sentence Reduction Credits
In addition to the possibility of early release on parole, most felony offenders sentenced to serve their sentences incarcerated in the TDOC have the opportunity to obtain sentence reductions based on sentence credits earned for, e.g., “good institutional behavior.” See generally
Defendants serving sentences for most of the statutorily-enumerated violent offenses listed above are eligible to earn sentence reduction credits, although they are limited to thereby reducing their sentence by no more than 15%.
II. Sentencing and Habeas Corpus
Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantees that “the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion, the General Assembly shall declare the public safety requires it.” While arising from the constitution, the writ has nevertheless been regulated by statute for more than 150 years. Ussery v. Avery, 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656, 657 (1968). The statute applicable at the time Defendant filed his habeas corpus petition provides that “[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases [in which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction], may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint.”
In spite of the statute‘s broad language, “the grounds upon which habeas corpus rеlief will be granted are narrow.” Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn.2004) (citing Dixon v. Holland, 70 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tenn.2002)). Specifically,
With respect to sentencing, we have recognized that “[s]entencing is jurisdictional and must be executed in compliance with the [applicable Sentencing] Act.” McConnell, 12 S.W.3d at 798. Thus, a trial court lacks the jurisdiction or authority to impose on a defendant a sentence that (1) is not authorized by the applicable statutes, see, e.g., May v. Carlton, 245 S.W.3d 340, 348-49 (Tenn.2008) (granting habeas corpus relief to convicted felon declared infamous for a crime not listed as infamous under the statute); Stephenson, 28 S.W.3d at 912 (holding habeas corpus attack proper where defendant‘s sentence of life without parole was not statutorily authorized and was therefore illegal), or (2) directly contravenes an applicable statute, see, e.g., Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124, 127-28 (Tenn.2006) (holding sentence illegal because it provided for a RED where the applicable statute expressly prohibited early release eligibility); State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn.1978) (holding sentence imposed in direct contravention of express statutory provisions “a nullity“). This Court considers unauthorized sentences, including those that are in direct contravention of an applicable statute, to be illegal as opposed to merely erroneous. See Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tenn.2007) (recognizing that a judgment rendered without statutory authority is void and that “[a] sentence imposed in direct contravention of a statute is void and illegal“). Habeas corpus relief may be granted on illegal sentences but not on those that are merely erroneous. Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 161.
Examples of illegal sentences include (1) a sentence imposed pursuant to an inapplicable statutory scheme, see McConnell, 12 S.W.3d at 796, 799-800; (2) a sentence designating a RED where a RED is specifically prohibited by statute, see Lewis, 202 S.W.3d at 127-28; (3) a sentence ordered to be served concurrently where statutorily required to be served consecutively, see Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d at 873; and (4) a sentence not authorized for the offense by any statute, see Stephenson, 28 S.W.3d at 912. In each of these cases, relief was appropriate because the trial court did not have the statutory authority (or jurisdiction) to impose the challenged sentence.
With regard to allegedly improper sentences arising from plea bargains, we have stated repeatedly that offender range classification and release eligibility are “non-jurisdictional.” See, e.g., Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Tenn.2007).
Examples of sentences which might contain “errors” but would not entitle the defendant to habeas corpus relief include (1) a plea-bargained sentence including a range classification that is greater than would be assigned on the basis of the defendant‘s prior convictions, see Mahler, 735 S.W.2d at 227-28; (2) a plea-bargained sentence including a term of years that was incompatible with the range designation, see Hoover, 215 S.W.3d at 780-81; and (3) a plea-bargained sentence including a RED that was incompatible with the range designation, see Hicks, 945 S.W.2d at 706. In each of these cases, this Court held that the challenged sentence was not illegal.13 Relief from legal sentences that contain alleged errors must be sought through an appeal as of right or through a petition for post-conviction relief.
III. Defendant‘s Sentence
In this case, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of delivering .5 grams or more of cocaine and one count of felonious possession of more than twenty-six grams of cocaine. Each of these offenses is ordinarily a Class B felony.
Because he possessed and delivered cocaine in a school zone, Defendant‘s plea-bargained sentence was imposed pursuant to the Drug-Free School Zone Act,
(a) It is the intent of this section to create Drug-Free School Zones for the purpose of providing all students in this state an environment in which they can learn without the distractions and dangers that are incident to the occurrence of drug activity in or around school facilities. The enhanced and mandatory minimum sentences required by this section for drug offenses occurring in a Drug-Free School Zone are necessary to serve as a deterrent to such unacceptable conduct.
(b) A violation of
§ 39-17-417 [prohibiting the manufacture, delivery, sale, or possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a controlled substance], or a conspiracy to violate such section, that occurs on the grounds or facilities of any school or within one thousand feet (1,000‘) of the real property that comprises a public or private elementary school, middle school or secondary school shall be punished one (1) classification higher than is provided in§ 39-17-417(b) -(i) for such violation.(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or the sentence imposed by the court to the contrary, a defendant sentenced for a violation of subsection (b) shall be required to serve at least the minimum sentence for such defendant‘s appropriate range of sentence. Any sentence reduction credits such defendant may be eligible for or earn shall not operate to permit or allow the release of such defendant prior to full service of such minimum sentence.
(d) Notwithstanding the sentence imposed by the court,15 the provisions of title 40, chapter 35, part 5, relative to release eligibility status and parole, shall not apply to or authorize the release of a defendant sentenced for a violation of subsection (b) prior to service of the entire minimum sentence for such defendant‘s appropriate range of sentence.
(e) Nothing in the provisions of title 41, chapter 1, part 5 [regarding early release for prison overcrowding] shall give eithеr the governor or the board of probation and parole the authority to release or cause the release of a defendant sentenced for a violation of subsection (b) prior to service of the entire minimum sentence for such defendant‘s appropriate range of sentence.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the judge from sentencing a defendant who violated subsection (b) to any authorized term of incarceration in excess of the minimum sentence for the defendant‘s appropriate range of sentence....
Of course, our primary aim in construing any statute “is to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the legislature.” Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301, 309 (Tenn.2008). Whenever possible, we discern legislative intent “from the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used, without forced or subtle construction that would limit or extend the meaning of the language.” Lipscomb v. Doe, 32 S.W.3d 840, 844 (Tenn.2000) (quoting Hawks v. City of Westmoreland, 960 S.W.2d 10, 16 (Tenn.1997)). Accordingly, when we are faced with clear, unambiguous language, “we must apply its plain meaning in its normal and accepted use, without a forced interpretation that would limit or expand the statute‘s application.” Eastman Chem. Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tenn.2004). When construing a more recent statute in conjunction with pre-existing legislation, “we presume that the legislature has knowledge of its prior enactments and is fully aware of any judicial constructions of those enactments.” Hicks, 945 S.W.2d at 707.
We begin with subsection (c) of the Act, which, by its plain and unambiguous language, requires a defendant being sentenced for committing a drug offense in a school zone “to serve at least the minimum sentence for the defendant‘s appropriate range of sentence.” As explained above, a defendant‘s “appropriate range of sentence” is determined in one of two ways: by the trial court upon proof of the defendant‘s prior convictions, or by plea bargain. The final sentence of subsection (c) makes clear that a defendant sentenced under the Act is not eligible for early release on the basis of sentence reduction credits before “full service” of the minimum sentence in his or her range.
Subsection (d) provides plainly and unambiguously that the minimum sentence must also be served with no eligibility for early release on parole. Accordingly, a defendant sentenced under the Act to the minimum term in his or her range will have a RED of 100%. Subsection (e) provides plainly and unambiguously that the minimum sentence must also be served before a defendant can be released in order to relieve prison overcrowding. In sum, a defendant being sentenced for committing a cocaine offense in a school zone will serve at least the minimum sentence in his or her range in its entirety, with no prospect of eligibility for early release on parole and no prospect of early release resulting from sentence reduction credits or prison overcrowding.
Significantly, the Act does not place a maximum upon the number of years that a trial court may order a defendant “to serve” for committing a drug offense within a school zone. Indeed, two specific provisions within the Act clearly contemplate that a trial court may order a defendant to serve more than the minimum sentence in his or her range. Subsection (c) refers to “at least” the minimum sentence, and subsection (f) plainly and unambiguously provides trial courts with the discretion to sentence defendants committing drug offenses in school zones “to any authorized term of incarceration in excess of the minimum sentence for the defendant‘s appropriate range of sentence.” Accordingly, it is entirely permissible—and legal—for a trial court, after considering mitigating and enhancement factors, to sentence a defendant who committed a drug offense in a school zone to serve up
We acknowledge, however, that the final sentence of subsection (c), and the full text of subsections (d) and (e), appear to contemplate that early release may become available with respect to those years in excess of the minimum that the trial court orders the defendant to serve in prison. A comparison to another statute limiting early release is helpful in this analysis.
Defendant argues in his brief to this Court that “[r]elease eligibility of 60% is the maximum release eligibility permitted by statute” pursuant to
In light of the express statutory provisions of the Act set forth above, Defendant‘s argument must fail. Contrary to his assertions, the General Assembly has declared specifically and unambiguously that defendants being sentenced for committing drug offenses in a school zone shall serve the entire minimum term of years in the defendant‘s sentencing range, without regard to parole eligibility or sentence reduction credits. While we recognize that Tennessee Code Annotated
We turn now to the actual sentence imposed on Defendant. In this case, Defendant acknowledged that he was a multiple offender and therefore subject to a Range II sentence.
The two uniform judgment documents filled out for Defendant‘s convictions each indicate that Defendant is sentenced as a “Standard” (Range I) offender, that his release eligibility is determined by reference to the Act (because the box labeled “School Zone” is checked), that he is sentenced to the TDOC, that his sentence length is twenty-two years, and that he is to serve “100%.” We construe the handwritten instruction of “100%” to mean that Defendant is sentenced to serve his entire term of twenty-two years with no eligibility for early release on parole. We rеject the State‘s characterization of the “100%” notation as “random” and “ambiguous” and conclude, instead, that the uniform judgment documents designate clearly and correctly the sentence to which the parties had, in fact, agreed. Had the parties intended that Defendant be eligible for parole with respect to the last seven years of his twenty-two-year term, the judgment documents would not bear the handwritten “100%” designation. In that event, the remaining information on the judgment forms would have alerted the TDOC that Defendant was eligible for early release on parole some time after he had served the first fifteen years.
Defendant obtained significant concessions in exchange for his guilty plea. First, the remaining two counts against him were dismissed. Second, the State agreed that Defendant‘s sentences be served concurrently, whereas he otherwise faced the possibility of consecutive service. Third, Defendant avoided federal prosecution for these offenses. Finally, although he qualified as a multiple Range II offender, the State and the trial court agreed that Defendant be sentenced as a Range I offender and therefore subject to a sentencing range of оnly fifteen to twenty-five years. The actual term of years imposed was twenty-two years for each offense instead of the minimum twenty-five years that is applicable to Range II offenders convicted of a Class A felony. In exchange for the lower range and reduced term of years, Defendant agreed to a RED
We turn, finally, to the crux of this case: whether a Range II defendant being sentenced for drug offenses committed in a school zone who plea-bargains to be sentenced as a Range I offender may be ordered to serve more than the minimum Range I sentence, but less than the minimum Range II sentence, without the possibility of early release on parole. Certainly, nothing in the language of the Act prevents or prohibits this result. And, in the context of this habeas corpus proceeding, we reiterate that, with respect to plea-bargained sentences, release eligibility is non-jurisdictional. A defendant may legally bargain for a higher RED in exchange for a lower sentencing range. A defendant‘s bargaining power extends to the point that he or she may choose to forego entirely any entitlement to a RED. That is precisely what happened here: to avoid a minimum sentence of twenty-five years to be served in its entirety, with the possibility of a longer sentence, Defendant bargained for, and received, a sentence of only twenty-two years to be served with no RED. Nothing in the Act, or elsewhere in our sentencing statutes, prohibits this result.
Nevertheless, the final sentence of subsection (c) of the Act appears to contemplate that a defendant ordered to serve more than the minimum term in his or her appropriate range is eligible for early release on the basis of sentence reduction credits applicable to that portion of the sentence in excess of the minimum. That the judgment documents designate the sentence to be served at “100%” does not preclude this result. As set forth above, several of the “100%” designations on a uniform judgment document do not preclude the accrual of sentence reduction credits. Accordingly, Defendant may inquire of the TDOC whether and how it intends to calculate any sentence reduction credits to which he may become entitled with respect to years sixteen through twenty-two of his sentence. If Defendant is not satisfied with the TDOC‘s response, he may file a proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. See Hughley v. State, 208 S.W.3d 388, 395 (Tenn.2006) (quoting Carroll v. Raney, 868 S.W.2d 721, 723 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993)).
Our interpretation of the Act allowing for the parties to agree on sentences that do not allow for early release on parole is consistent with our position that sentencing range classification and REDs are non-jurisdictional elements of sentencing. This interpretation allows the parties the maximum flexibility to craft a particular sentence for a particular defendant that still satisfies the overall legislative intent expressed in our sentencing scheme. For instance, in this case Defendant received a sentence that was more favorable than any sentence he would have received had he not agreed to the plea bargain and then been convicted at trial of the charged offenses. The State‘s ability to craft this distinct sentence enabled it to avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial and yet ensure that Defendant spends a considerable amount of time incarcerated. Defendant‘s sentence does not contravene the Act or any other applicable provisions of our sentencing statutes. Further, the Aсt authorizes this result. Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
CONCLUSION
Defendant‘s plea-bargained sentence requiring him to serve twenty-two years pursuant to the Act with no possibility of early release on parole was within the trial court‘s jurisdiction to impose and is therefore a legal sentence. Because Defendant
SHARON G. LEE, J., filed a concurring opinion.
GARY R. WADE, J., filed an opinion concurring separately, in which JANICE M. HOLDER, C.J., joined.
SHARON G. LEE, J., concurring.
I write separately to state my position in this case. I concur with the views of my colleagues as expressed in the majority and concurring opinions that the defendant is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. My decision in this case would have been different had the trial court imposed this sentence on the defendant after a trial. However, because this was a voluntary guilty plea agreement, and not а sentence imposed by the trial court following a trial, the defendant waived any habeas corpus relief he may have been entitled to receive because the sentence he bargained for was within the statutory minimum and statutory maximum for the offense.
I do not join in Justice Wade‘s concurring opinion because I do not think this is the appropriate case to decide the viability of Edwards v. State, 269 S.W.3d 915 (Tenn.2008). The majority opinion does not rely on Edwards nor cite it for any legal proposition. Neither party briefed or argued the merits of Edwards. Edwards is factually distinguishable as it involved a sentence imposed by the trial court after a trial, whereas this case concerns a guilty plea. Therefore, the affirmance or reversal of Edwards should await a day when the issue is squarely before the Court. Today is not that day.
GARY R. WADE, J., concurring.
As the majority opinion observes, the Court of Criminal Appeals has twice held that petitioner Davis‘s sentences were illegal. After our intermediate appellate court‘s first opinion in this case, Davis v. State, No. M2007-01729-CCA-R3-HC, 2008 WL 1958174, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. May 6, 2008), we granted the State‘s application for permission to appeal and remanded for reconsideration in light of our decision in Edwards v. State, 269 S.W.3d 915 (Tenn.2008). Upon reconsideration, the Court of Criminal Appeals again remanded to thе trial court for the entry of habeas corpus relief. Davis v. State, No. M2009-00011-CCA-RM-HC, 2009 WL 961777, at *4 (Tenn.Crim.App. April 8, 2009). Upon application by the State, we granted permission to appeal.
I concur in the result, but I write separately in an effort to identify a workable rule in an area of law which has, on occasion, produced confusing results. While the more recent cases from this Court have rejected claims for habeas corpus relief based upon deviant range classification or release eligibility percentages inconsistent with statutory guidelines, see, e.g., Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tenn.1997), and Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776, 780-81 (Tenn.2007), I maintain that the majority opinion in Edwards cannot be reconciled with established precedent. Nevertheless, I would conclude, based on other of our opinions which do offer some consistency in analysis, that a guilty plea as a part of a negotiated sentence waives release eligibility and offender status so long as the sentence falls within the minimum and maximum terms for the offense. Thus, the petitioner Davis
Some historical perspective may be in order. Initially, “[a]ny person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in subsection (b) and in cases specified in
To obtain habeas corpus relief, a petitioner must be ‘imprisoned or restrained of liberty.’ ‘Imprisoned’ refers to actual physical confinement or detention. ‘Restrained of liberty’ is a broader term and encompasses situations beyond actual physical custody. However, a petitioner is not restrained of liberty unless the challenged judgment itself imposes a restraint on the petitioner‘s freedom of action or movement.
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 257 (Tenn.2007) (citations omitted); see also May v. Carlton, 245 S.W.3d 340, 346 (Tenn.2008).
Despite the broad statutory language, I would observe that the grounds upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted are, in practice, limited. See Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn.2004). Unlike a post-conviction petition, for example, which may afford relief from a voidable judgment, the purpose of a state habeas corpus petition is to contest only void judgments. Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn.2007); State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). A facially invalid or void judgment is one that a court has no authority to enter. Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn.1998). A voidable judgment, on the other hand, appears valid on its face and typically requires proof of a constitutional violation to establish its invalidity. Id.
This Court has often ruled that the writ of habeas corpus may be sustained “only when it appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings ... that a court lacked jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant or that the sentence has expired.” Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910, 911 (Tenn.2000); accord Ussery v. Avery, 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656, 658 (1968); State v. Galloway, 45 Tenn. (5 Cold.) 326, 336-37 (1868). Nevertheless, this Court has consistently added that an illegal sentence qualifies as void and may be set aside through habeas corpus at any time. May, 245 S.W.3d at 344; see also Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 256. For years, our Court has quite simply defined an illegal sentence as one that directly contravenes a statute. Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 256; see also State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn.1978). Indeed, we have provided specific instructions that the petition for habeas corpus is the proper procedure for challenging a sentence which is not authorized by statute. Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512, 514 (Tenn.2005). Prior opinions have identified two grounds upon which a petitioner may qualify for relief from a judgment: (1) when the trial court lacked jurisdiction or authority to impose a sentence upon a defendant; or (2) when the trial court imposed a sentence in direct contravention of a statute. The majority opinion in Edwards, however, blurred these two concepts by suggesting that a judgment is void, and that habeas corpus relief is warranted, only upon showing that the trial court lаcked jurisdiction. In my view, the analysis by the Edwards majority further clouded our treatment of habeas corpus in that it did not address whether the record established that the trial court had im-
In our 1978 Burkhart opinion, the lead case on the subject of illegal sentences, the defendant escaped from prison while serving a term for burglary. 566 S.W.2d at 872. He pled guilty to escape and received a sentence concurrent with the one he was serving even though the statute required a consecutive term. Id. When the Department of Correction notified Burkhart that his sentence was to be served consecutively regardless of the judgment by the trial court, he filed a petition asking for relief. Id. This Court held that the concurrent sentence was imposed “in direct contravention of the express [statutory] provisions ... and consequently was a nullity.” Id. at 873. Citing precedent in a number of other jurisdictions, this Court ruled that “a trial judge may correct an illegal, as opposed to a merely erroneous, sentence at any time, even if it has become final.” Id. The case was remanded to the trial court for further consideration as to whether the judgmеnt should be set aside. Id.
More recently, in Moody, this Court pointed out that habeas corpus is the proper collateral remedy for the correction of an illegal sentence. 160 S.W.3d at 516. Moody received consecutive six- and four-year sentences for spousal sexual battery and aggravated assault. Id. at 514. He was sentenced to an enhanced supervised probation program, and the judgment required him to register as a convicted sex offender. Id. He did not seek appeal of the revocation order, nor did he file a petition for post-conviction or habeas corpus relief. Id. When the trial court later revoked his probation, he filed a “Motion to Correct Errors in Judgment,” challenging the legality of the sentences on the basis that he was convicted under statutes that did not require his registration as a sex offender. Id. The motion was denied, and Moody filed a petition for writ of certiorari. Id. Because the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure did not authorize a direct appeal from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence, we held that “the proper procedure for challenging an illegal sentence at the trial level is through a petition for writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 516.
Later, this Court refined the process by which a habeas corpus petitioner might be permitted to establish the illegality of a sentence where a jurisdictional defect is not apparent from the judgment. Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 261. We held that when there is “an illegal sentence claim based on facts not apparent from the face of the judgment, an adequate record for summary review must include pertinent documents to support those factual assertions.” Id. Further, “[w]hen such documents from the record of the underlying proceedings are not attached to the habeas corpus petition, a trial court may properly choose to dismiss the petition without the appointment of counsel and without a hearing.” Id. Applying these principles in Summers, we arrived at the following conclusions:
Although the judgment on Summers’ escape conviction states that the sentence is to be served concurrently with his sentences for voluntary manslaughter, aggravated arson, and sale of cocaine, the judgment is silent as to whether Summers committed the escape while being held for the other charges. We conclude, therefore, that no illegality of the sentence is evident on the face of the judgment ordering a concurrent sentence for the escape conviction. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that Summers committed the escape while being held for the other
charges.... Because the escape judgment is facially valid and Summers failed to support his factual assertions with pertinent documents from the record of the underlying proceedings, we conclude that summary dismissal was proper.
Id. at 262 (emphasis added).
In my assessment, the Summers opinion taught that the inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding requires an analysis of any “pertinent documents” from the record of the underlying proceedings that are attached to the petition in support of the assertions. See id. at 261. Thus, the procedure developed in that case, directing a habeas corpus petitioner to file those “pertinent documents,” necessarily recognizes a challenge to a possible jurisdictional defect in a sentence that is “not apparent from the face of the judgment.” See id. That is, habeas corpus relief may be available, but the illegality of a sentence may be established by documentation other than the judgment of conviction and sentence.
The dissent in Edwards, joined in by Chief Justice Holder, criticized the holding because the majority treated the case, in which the trial court imposed the Petitioner‘s sentence in direct contravention of a sentencing statute after a jury verdict, as identical to those cases (such as the one before us today) in which the judgment has been entered through a guilty plea and negotiated sentence. In Edwards, the petitioner neither bargained for nor agreed to a sentence higher than the permissible range, as was the case in both Mahler, 735 S.W.2d at 226, and Hoover, 215 S.W.3d at 776. The trial court, based upon a miscalculation of the prior offenses, unilaterally imposed upon Edwards a sentence under the Range III, persistent offender category rather than the Range II, multiple offender classification. See
That this Court in Hoover used the term “non-jurisdictional” to describe our statutory sentencing scheme when trying to reconcile errors in the context of a plea-negotiated sentence, 215 S.W.3d at 780, appears to be the origin of some of the confusion. In Mahler, former Chief Justice Harbison, speaking for a unanimous Court, recognized the concept of waiver as to range classification and release eligibility:
It is generally true that a judgment imposed by a trial court in direct contravention of express statutory рrovisions regarding sentencing is illegal and is subject to being set aside at any time, even if it has become final. In [Burkhart], the trial judge had ordered a sentence for escape to be served concurrently with a previous sentence in direct contravention of a statute requiring the sentence to be consecutive.
There have been other cases where sentences were imposed which were higher or lower than that authorized by the statute designating the punishment for the crime. In those cases the sentences have been held subject to being later vacated or corrected.
As previously stated, that is not the situation here. The sentence imposed was clearly within statutory limits fixed for the offense of murder in the second degree. In our opinion any question as to the classification of appellant as a Range II offender or as to his release eligibility was waived by the guilty plea.
Mahler, 735 S.W.2d at 228 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Reference to the Mahler ruling may help reconcile what I perceive to be inconsistencies in our application of the habeas corpus remedy. Indeed, the state has ar-
After our ruling in Edwards, this Court remanded the case at issue today to the Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider its decision to grant petitioner Davis habeas corpus relief. That our intermediate court did not change its ruling is not surprising. In my view, this Court‘s ruling in Edwards, because of internal contradictions, provided little guidance. To illustrate, on the one hand, this Court had ruled in Edwards that
habeas corpus relief is limited to remedying jurisdictional defects that are apparent on the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings on which the judgment is rendered. For purposes of habeas corpus challenges to sentencing, jurisdictional defect means either a sentence that directly contravenes a governing statute or a sentence that was not available under governing statutes.
269 S.W.3d at 924 (emphasis added). On the other hand, this Court also ruled that
offender classification is a non-jurisdictional element of sentencing. Thus, errors and/or irregularities in offender classification are waived by a guilty plea, and are not grounds for habeas corpus relief if the sentence is imposed by a trial court after a jury conviction. Simply stated, habeas corpus relief is not available to correct errors or irregularities in offender classification.
Id. (emphasis added). Offender classification is, of course, based in statute. See
In an effort to provide a workable rule for the trial courts, I am persuaded to concur in this opinion based primarily upon an interpretation that I believe reconciles the rulings in Mahler, McConnell, and Hoover. As stated, in Hoover, this Court held that the use of offender classification and release eligibility, as subjects of plea bargaining, are non-jurisdictional. 215 S.W.3d at 780. By the application of the rationale in Mahler, 735 S.W.2d at 228, therefore, release eligibility and offender classification by range can be the subject of plea negotiations and agreed to by a defendant provided that the agreed sentence is within the statutory limits for the
As stated, the majority in Edwards avoided a statutory interpretation analysis by simply characterizing the error regarding offender classification as “non-jurisdictional.” 269 S.W.3d at 924. Here, the Court has properly included such an analysis. The petitioner Davis pled guilty to two Class B felonies, which, by virtue of their being committed within 1,000 feet of a school zone, were elevated to Class A felonies, as required by
Thus, I concur in the result.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice HOLDER joins in this concurring opinion.
Notes
(b) Persons restrained of their liberty pursuant to a guilty plea and negotiated sentence are not entitled to the benefits of this writ on any claim that:
(1) The petitioner received concurrent sentencing where there was a statutory requirement for consecutive sentencing;
(2) The petitioner‘s sentence included a release eligibility percentage where the petitioner was not entitled to any early release; or
(3) The petitioner‘s sentence included a lower release eligibility percentage than the petitioner was entitled to under statutory requirements.