# FILED
April 30, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JANUA RY 1999 SESSION

MISTY LAVER NE ROBERTS, ) ) Appellant, ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9803-CC- 0 012 4 ) vs. ) Hawkins County ) DONAL CA

MPBELL, Commissioner, ) Hon. James E. Beckner, Judge and ) FAYE CLA

UDE, Sentence Manager, ) (Sentence Reduction Credits) ) Appellees. ) )
FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: MISTY LAVERNE ROBERTS JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney General & Repor ter Special Needs Facility

- 7A 7575 Cockrill Bend Ind. Rd

. ELLEN H. POLLACK Nashville, TN 37209-1057 Assis tant Attorney Gene ra l 425 Fifth Ave. N., 2d Floor Nashville, TN 37243-0493 C. BERKELEY BELL, JR. District Attorney General DOUG GODBEE Assistant

District Attorney General 100 E. Main St., Ste. 201 Rogersville, TN 37857 OPINION FILED:________________ AFFIRMED JAMES CURWOOD

WITT, JR., JUDGE1 This filing is a novel one. It is not properly

a petition for the writ of habeas corpus

because there is no allegation that the petitioner's convictions are void or her sentence has e xpired. See Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993). Moreover, it r

aises no claim that the conv iction or sentence is v

oid or voidable based upon constitutional shortcoming; as suc h, it is not a petition for post-conviction reli ef. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997). 2 OPINION The petitio ner, Misty Laverne Roberts, appeals from the trial court's dismissal for lack of subject matter j urisd iction of her "Motion for Contempt Proceedings." 1 The defendant is presently serving an effective 33-year sentence in the Department

of Correction for her October 3, 1994 convictions of four counts of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated kidnapp ing. In her motion and on appe al, s he claims that the named respondents have ignored the trial court's judgmentas regards sentencing by incorrectlycalculatingher sentence and failing to correct the error once notifie d of it. Sh e prays that the respondents be found in contempt pursuantto Code section 16-1-103 and R ule of Criminal Procedure 42(b) and that a writ of attachment is sue against the respondents und er Code section 29- 6-101. Upon review of th e record, the brief s of the p arties, a nd the ap plicable law, we affirm the trial court' s dismissal of the motion.

Roberts' complaint is with the Dep art ment's application of credits to her sentenc e. Genera lly, a trial court's authority regardin g sentencing credits ends
once the inmate enters t he Departme nt. Matthew P. Finlaw v. Anderson County Jail , No. 03C01-9212-CR-00048, s lip op. at 4 (Tenn. Crim. App.,Knoxville, Aug. 13, 1993). Tennessee law pro vides that an inm ate who is aggr ieved o f t he Department's calculation of her sentence shou ld seek her remedy under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-5
- 101 to -325 (1998); see, e.g. , Lonnie Williams v. Bruce McDonald , No. 02C01-9603-CR-00109, slip op. at 2-3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Mar. 11, 1997); David A. Darnell v. Ricky Bell , No. 01C01-9508-CC-00275, s lip op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App.,Nashville, July 5,2 A 1998 enactment provided that “ rule” under the UAPA does not

include “[s]tatements concerning inmates of a correctiona l or detention facility.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102(10)(G) . Under Code section 4-5- 223, an individual may petition an agency for a declaratory order regarding “the va lidity or applicability of a statute , rule or order within the primary juri sdiction of the agency.” Notwithstanding the new subsec tion (10)(G), the “TOMI S Offender Sentence Letter” the petitioner received most closely resembles an “order.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102(7) (order determines legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities or other legal interests of an individual). 3 1996); Brigham v. Lack , 755 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn. Crim. App. 198 8). If the inmate seeks judicial review once a final agency determination has been made, she
m ust init iate review in the Davidson County Chanc ery Court, rather than

in the cir cuit court i n which she was convicted. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-225(a) (1998); Brigham , 744 S.W.2d at 471. Review of the chancery court's deci sion lies with the court of appeals, not this court. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-323 (1998).

Subject matter jurisdiction ov er challenges of the sort made by the petitioner

is conferred on entities other than the Hawkins

County Circuit Cou rt and the court of criminal appeals. Although this court and the circuit court do possess
co ntempt powers, we know of no authority which w ould permit us to us e thos e powers in an attempt to obtain jurisdiction where none exists. 2

Accordin gly, the trial court's dis missal of Roberts' motion is affirmed.

________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

CONCUR:4

_______________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE

_______________________________ JOHN K. BYERS, SENIOR JUDGE