Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Raymond A. Clark v. State of Tennessee
Citation: Not availableDocket: W2004-02503-CCA-R3-PC
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; June 16, 2005; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Raymond A. Clark appeals the denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition in the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The trial court had previously dismissed Clark's habeas corpus application, which claimed improper consideration of mitigating factors during sentencing for his guilty pleas to aggravated assault and attempted murder. Clark's appeal was deemed improper due to his failure to comply with statutory requirements, including filing in the correct court and providing necessary documentation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing with the State's motion to uphold the denial. The opinion was delivered by Judge John Everett Williams, with Judges Alan E. Glenn and J.C. McLin concurring. A petitioner's failure to meet statutory requirements for reviewing a motion to reopen deprives the court of jurisdiction to consider the matter, as established in John Harold Williams, Jr. v. State. Neither the Post-Conviction Procedure Act nor the Supreme Court Rules allow for suspension of these requirements. Even if jurisdiction existed, the court noted that the Tennessee Supreme Court has rejected the application of Blakely to the Tennessee Sentencing Act, and previous rulings indicate that the retrospective application of Blakely in collateral review cases is not mandated. The petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief is also unsuccessful. Such relief is only granted when the trial court clearly lacked jurisdiction to convict or sentence, or when a sentence has expired. A facially valid conviction cannot be attacked in a habeas corpus proceeding. The petitioner claims his convictions are void due to a denial of his right to a jury trial, but this claim is deemed voidable rather than void, and Blakely's ruling is not retroactively applied. The petitioner has not demonstrated entitlement to habeas relief, having failed to identify a facially invalid judgment or an expired sentence. Additionally, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding denials of motions to reopen post-conviction petitions. Consequently, the state's motion is granted, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.