 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eidson v. State6/8/2005
I. Facts
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. Gregory Eidson v. State, 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.
II. Analysis
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred when it dismissed his petition because, as he alleged in his petition: (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment in this case because the statute of limitations had run on the DUI conviction; (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. He also presents multiple other issues for our review, including that: (1) the habeas corpus court failed to provide him records so that he could file an accurate petition; (2) the habeas corpus judge is not a "judge" within the meaning of "any judge" as stated in the statute; and (3) the judge had a duty to appoint counsel and hold a hearing.
Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to seek habeas corpus relief. In Tennessee, a "person imprisoned or restrained of [his or her] liberty, under any pretense whatsoever . . . may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment . . . ." Tenn. Code Ann.
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|