 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eidson v. Moore10/25/2005
Gregory Eidson ("Mr. Eidson" or "Appellant") has filed a pro se appeal to this Court asking us to address numerous issues related to the dismissal of his complaint against Judge Lee Moore, Jr. ("Judge Moore" or "Appellee") of the Lake County Circuit Court. On appeal, Mr. Eidson filed a limited technical record containing only the pleadings filed in the instant case. Many of the facts set forth in Mr. Eidson's brief cannot be found in the record before this Court.
While an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, Mr. Eidson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, which Judge Moore presided over. Judge Moore denied Mr. Eidson's petition, and Mr. Eidson appealed the denial of his petition to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We resort to the following recitation of facts found in the decision of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals:
The Petitioner pled guilty to fourth offense DUI (Count 2) committed on January 6, 2001, and to four counts of violating the Habitual Traffic Offender ("HTO") law, committed on: January 6, 2001 (Count 1); February 12, 2001 (Count 5); June 12, 2001 (Count 8); and July 15, 2001 (Count 9). The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to two years in prison for Count 1 and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for Count 2, and it ordered that those two sentences run concurrently. For the remaining three HTO convictions, Count 5, Count 8, and Count 9, the trial court ordered the Petitioner to serve two years in prison for each count, and it ordered that the sentences run concurrently with each other. It then ordered that the sentences in Count 1 and Count 2 run consecutively to the sentence for Count 5, Count 8, and Count 9. Thus, the Petitioner's effective sentence was four years, to serve in the Tennessee Department of Corrections.
The Petitioner was originally declared a habitual traffic offender on July 14, 1997. He filed a habeas corpus petition challenging that judgment of conviction, which the habeas corpus court dismissed. On appeal, this Court affirmed that dismissal. Eidson v. State, 2005 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 94, No. M2004-02528-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 292444, at * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 1, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 28, 2005). The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief from the five judgments of conviction in this case alleging: (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment in this case because the statute of limitations had run on the DUI offense; (2) that the prior DUI offense from September 14, 1995, is void because it was entered by a probate court, which lacks jurisdiction in criminal cases; and (3) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order that three of the sentences for the HTO convictions run concurrently because they were committed while the Petitioner was released on three different bonds. The habeas corpus court dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that he is not being held illegally, and the judgments in this case were entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the court found that the Petitioner received legal sentences within the appropriate range, and his sentences had not expired. It is from this order that the Petitioner now appeals.
Eidson v. State, No. M2005-00150-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 579, at *2-3 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 8, 2005). The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals found all of Mr. Eidson's arguments to be without merit except for his arguments addressing the propriety of the trial court's method for calculating his sentence. Id. at *10-12. The court remanded the case to the trial court "for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing to d
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|