### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE EARL RAINES v. STATE OF TE NNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Anderson County No. 99CR0149 James B. Scott, Jr., Judge

No. E1999-01340-C CA-R3-PC - Dec ided May 9, 2000 Defendant

was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced t o twen ty-five years. On direct review, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, but reduced defendant's sen

tence to twenty years. Defendant filed a petition for post conviction relief which was subsequ ently dismissed for failure to timely f

ile said petition. On April 22, 1999, defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Criminal Court of Anderson County. The trial court held the petition was not filed in the prope

r venue and the pe

tition was dismissed.

This appeal follow

s. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgmen

t of the Criminal C

ourt Affirmed. R ILEY , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W OODALL , J. and G LENN , J. joined. Earl Raines, Mountain City, Tennessee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Mark A. Fulks, Assistant Attorney Ge neral ; James N. Ramsey, Distric t Attorney Gener

al; John G. Maddox, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee OPINION FACTS On July 20, 1992, an Anderson County jury convicted defendant of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years. On direct review, this court affirmed the judgment, butreduced defen dant's sentence

to twenty years. See State v. Raines , 882 S.W.2d 376, 386 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Subsequ ently, defendant filed a petition for post conviction relief which was dismissed due to defendant's failure to file within the one-year statut

e of limitations. On April 22, 1999, while incarcerated in Johnson County, Tennessee, defendant filed a pro se petition for writ

o f habeas corpus in the Criminal Court for Anderson County. The trial court dismissed the petitio

n stating defenda

nt had not file

d the petiti on in the proper ve nue. This appeal followed. In thi s appeal he claim

s his sentence is vo

id because the tr

ial court lacked

jurisdiction to1 Our review of this court’s opinion does not reflect such a literal recognition. 

### -2- impose his sentence. Specifically, defendant asserts the trial court failed to fo

llow the appropria

te sentencing guidelines and failed to adequately instruct the jury on the issue of voluntary intoxication. Defendant

further asserts that this court on direct appellee recognized the trial court “was not

hitting on all the cylinders,” but did not grant appropriate relief. 1

HABEAS CORPUS Article I, § 15 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantees the right to seek habeas corpus relief. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21-101 et seq. codifies the appl icable procedu

res for seeking

a writ. While there is no statutory

time limit in which to file for habeas corpus relief, Tennessee law provides very narrow grounds upon which such relief may be granted. Taylor v. Sta te , 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). A habeas corpus petition may be used only to c ontest void judg ments whic h are facially invalid because (1) the convicting cour t was without

jurisdiction or aut

hority to sen

tence a defend

ant; or (2) defendant’s sentence has expired. State v. Ritchie , ___S.W.3d___, ___ (Tenn. 2000); Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993).

ANALYSIS A. Venue Defendant

argues that he

should be allowed t

o proceed with his petition eventhough he is incarcerat ed in Johnson County because the applicable records for his case are kept in Ande rson Cou nty. The habeas corpus statute’s proce dural provisions a

re mandatory

and must be scrupulously followed. Archer , 851 S.W.2d at 165. Te nn. Code Ann. § 29-2 1-105 requir es a defendan t’s application for writ

of habeas corpus to be “made to the court most convenient in point of distance to the applicant ,” unless a suffic ient reason is gi

ven for not apply

ing to such court

. This usually means the application mu st be filed in

the county of incarceration. Lewis v. Metropolitan General Sessions Court of Na

shville , 949 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). We agree with the state’s assertion that this provision would be vitiated if the mere location of the records where defendant was convicted is held to be a “sufficient reason” f or allow in g defendant to

file in an alternative court. Therefore, we find the trial court appropriately dismissed defendant’s petition for lack of venue. B. Cogniza ble Claims Add iti ona lly, we find the defendant has failed to raise a claim which is appropriate for

### -3-

habeas corpus relief. Defendant

argues the tria

l court did not proper

ly follow the sentencing guidelines in imposing his sentence and

ina ppropriately

applied certain

enhancement fa

ctors and failed

to apply cer

tain mitigating factors. Additionally, he alleges the trial’s court’s instruction to the jury with re

gard to voluntary intoxication w as inadequat e. Finally, he contends this court erred in not granting appropriate re

lief on direct ap

peal. Ess ent ial ly, defendant seeks to void a judgment valid on its face. “If the court rendering a judgme n t has jurisdiction of the person, the subject-matter, and has the authority to make the challenged

judgment, the judgment is voidable, not void; and the judgment may not be co

llaterally attacked in a suit for habeas corpus relief.” Passarella v. Stat e , 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) ( citations omitted ). The mere fact that an appellant designates a pleading as a petition for habeas corp us relie f does not, however, mean that the jurisdiction has been properly invoked. Archer , 851 S.W.2d at 164. T his judgment is not fa

cially void e

ven if petitioner’ s allegations we re true. Thus, th

es e allegations are not the proper subject for habeas corpus releif. Ritchie , ___S.W.3d at ___. CONCLUSION Def endant has failed to file his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the pro per venue . Furthermore, defendant has failed to r aise a ny cognizable claims under the statute. Although, defendant’s claims are appropriate for post-conviction review, as previous ly he ld b y this court, defendant has failed to file a petition for post-conviction review wi thin the ap plicable statute of limitations. There

fore, the judgme

nt of the trial cour

t dismissing the pet

ition is AFFIRMED

.