James K. Robbins appeals the dismissal of his fourth petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Morgan County Criminal Court, arguing that his conviction judgment is void due to illegal sentencing. Robbins was previously convicted of four counts of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated assault, receiving concurrent sentences of forty years for the rapes and six years for the assault, totaling an effective sentence of forty years. His convictions and sentencing were affirmed through multiple appeals, including direct appeal and post-conviction petitions.
In his current petition, filed on May 9, 2006, Robbins claims that he was incorrectly sentenced as a Range II, especially aggravated offender, arguing that the evidence from his 1987 sentencing hearing did not support this classification. The habeas corpus court held a hearing on October 25, 2010, and subsequently denied the petition, issuing a written order on December 17, 2010. Robbins timely appealed on November 15, 2010.
On appeal, Robbins contends that his sentences are void, while the State argues that Robbins has not presented a valid claim for relief and has not demonstrated that he is confined due to the allegedly void sentences. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the habeas corpus court's judgment.
The Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief despite the disagreement over whether he is imprisoned or restrained by his sentences. The court conducts a de novo review without presumption of correctness in habeas corpus cases, as established in Summers v. State. Under Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution and relevant statutes, habeas corpus relief is narrowly available only if the judgment is void, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction or the sentence has expired. A void judgment is facially invalid, while a voidable judgment is valid on its face but requires additional proof for invalidity. The burden rests on the Petitioner to show the judgment is void by a preponderance of evidence. The Petitioner’s claim regarding improper classification as a Range II, especially aggravated offender does not qualify as a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, as it pertains to a voidable judgment. Consequently, the trial court correctly denied the Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief, and the dismissal of the petition is affirmed.
