# FILED
September 16, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON

HA STIE EUGENE LOVE, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A . NO. 02C01-9 706-CC-00214 ) vs. ) LA UDERDALE COUN TY ) STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. 4933 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R

This matter is before th e Court upon the state’s mot ion, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to aff irm the judgment of the trial court in this case by

order rather

than formal opinion . The above-c aptioned case represents an appeal from the tri al court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for w rit of habeas corpus. The record was filed on June 2 0, 1997, and the pe titioner filed his brief on July 16, 1997. The petiti oner is cur rently s erving concurrent ni nety-nine year sentences for two convictions of rape he received in 1968. The petitioner contends that his sentence has expired because the stat ute under whi ch he was s entenced no long er exist s and the current l aw imposes a lesser penal ty for the offenses c ommitted.

Having reviewed the state’s mot ion in lig ht of the petitioner ’s brief and the record as a w hole, we conclude that the moti on is wel l-taken and sho uld be grante d. In dismissing the petition, t he trial cour t found that the petiti oner had failed to s how upon the face of the judgment or the recor d of the proceeding s upon whic h the judgment w as rendered that the convicti ng court was without jurisdic tion or author ity to sen tence the petitioner or

that the petiti oner’s sentenc e of imprisonment or other restr

aint has expired. See State v. Archer , 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993).

W e agree with the trial court’s ruling. The convicting court in this case had jurisdiction over both the subject ma tter and person, and not hing in the record2

before us demonstrates that the conv icting c ourt’s acti ons were un authorized. Nor has the petitioner shown that his senten ce has expired. Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the Tennes see Criminal Sentencing R eform Act of 1989, wh ich repealed t he statute under w hich the petiti oner was convicted and sentenced, speci fically s tates that "[t]his act s hall not affect rig hts and duties matu red, penalties that were incurred, or proceedings

that were begun before its effective date." 1989 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 591, § 115. See also State ex rel . Stewart v. McWherter , 857 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992); State v. Russell , 866 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn. Crim. App. 199 1). Therefore, si nce the petitioner i s not challeng ing the appro priateness of his sentence at the t ime it was imposed, his present claim m ust fail.

Accordingly, we cannot find any error on the part of the trial court in dismissing the petition. It is therefore ORDERED th at the state’s motion is gr anted. Pursuant to Rul e 20 of the Rules of the Court of Cri minal Appeals, we affirm the trial court’s dis missal of the petitioner’s petition f or writ of habeas corpus.

Enter, this t he ___ day of Aug ust, 1997.

______________________________ PAUL G. SUMM ERS, JUDGE

______________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

______________________________ DAVID G. HA

YES, JUDG E