1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JAMES OLIVER ROSS, P RO 

### S E 

### v. STATE OF TEN NESSEE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C03-74 Roy B. Morgan, Judge

No. W2003-00843-CCA-R3-HC - Filed Dec ember 31, 2003

The Peti tion er, J ames O liver Ross , appe als th e tria l cour t's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief purs u ant to Rule 20, Rules of th e Court of

Criminal A

ppeals. T

he Petition

er failsto asser

t a cogniza ble cl ai m f or wh ic h h ab ea s c or pu s r el ie f m ay be gran ted. Accordingly , the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial cour t is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court

of Crimi nal Appeals

D AV ID G. H AYES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J OE G. R ILEY and J OHN E VERE TT W ILLI AMS , joined.

James Oliver Ross, pro se.

P aul G. Summers , Attorne y General & Repor ter; Thom as E. Willia

ms, II I, As sistant A

ttorne y General, for the appellee, State of Te nnessee.

MEMORAN

DUM OP

INION

On June 23, 1983, Petitioner entere d guilty pleas to th

ree cou nts of arme d robber

y. F or these convicti ons, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for twenty years. March 10, 2003, Petitioner filed, pro se , a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief, alleging (1) the guilty pleas we

re notknowingly a

nd voluntarily entere d, (2) sentence imposed was excessive, (3) the sentenc e did not comply with the 1989 Sentencing Act, (4) counsel for Petitioner was ineffective , (5) the sentence has expired, and (6) the sentence was enhanced by invalid prior convicti ons. Petitio ner is cu rrently confined in the Harrison County Adult Detention Center in Gulfport, Mississippi. He admits that has served the sentences impo se d from these guilty pleas and is no longer in custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction.2

By order entered Mar

ch 19, 2003, the trial court denied Petitioner's application for habea s corpus relief. The trial court entered the following findings relating to the petition: 1. The petitioner James Oliver Ross entered a guilty plea

on June 23, 1983 to armed robbery and was sentenc ed t o 20 years to ser ve in the Tennessee Department of Corr ecti on[]. The penalty f

or armed robbery

in effect at the time the petitioner entered his guilty plea wa s ten year s to life imprisonme nt. It is therefore cle ar from the face of the judgment that the Court had jurisdiction to enter the sentence and that the sentence entered was within the leg al range. 2. The is sue ch allen ging t he sentence entered as violating the 1989 Sente ncing Re form Act is a nullity since the petitioner wa s sentenced prior to that Act taking effec t. 3. All other complaints take issue with the validity of the g uilty plea proceedings or the conduct of the petitioner's counsel and are not the pr oper bas i s for a writ of habeas c orpus. These issues should have been raised under the Post-Conviction Procedures Act. The statute of limitations as to post conviction has long expired. 4. The petitioner has served his 20 year sentence and is presently confinedin th e Harrison County

Jail in Gulfport, Mississippi. Therefore he is not illegally deta ined by any State, County

or local authority of the Sta

te of Tennessee but is confined by the State of Mississippi for charges in that state and any legal remedies must

be address ed under

the prope r pleadi ngs with

the State of Mississi

ppi and its courts.

A writ of habeas corpus may be granted only

when the petitioner has established lack of jurisdict ion for the order

of confinement or

that he is otherwise

entitled t o immediat

e relea se because of the expiration of his sentence. See Ussery v. Avery, 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656 (1968); State ex

rel. W ade v. Nor

vell, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 447, 443 S.W.2d 839 (1969). Habeas corpus relief is available in this state only when it appears on the face of the judg ment or the record that the trial court was without jurisdiction to convict or sentence the de fendant or that the sentence of imprisonment has otherwise expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993); Potts v. State, 833 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). Unlike the post-conviction petition, the purpose of the habeas corpus petition is to contest a void, not merely voidable, judgment. State ex rel. Newsome v. Henderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). A petitioner cannot collaterally a

ttack a facially

valid conviction in a habeas corpus proceeding

. Potts v. State, 833 S.W.2d 60, 62

(Tenn. 1 992); State ex

rel. Holbr

ook v. Bo mar, 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (1963).

The Petitioner has failed to set forth any allegations that would indicate that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict or sentence or that he is unlawfully “restrained” for a sentence that has expired. Petitioner's claims challenging the voluntar iness of the guilty plea

and the effec tiveness of trial c ounsel ar e merely voidable , not void. S imilarly , the cha llenge s to his sentence are not grounds cog nizable in a habeas corpus proceeding. See Alonzo Ste wart v. Stat e , No. 03C01-9810-CR-00380, 1999 WL 521195, at * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Jul. 23,3

1999), perm. to appeal denied , (Tenn. Nov. 9, 1999). The Petitioner's claim that he was not sentenc ed under

the 1989 Se

ntencing Act is a nullity

as he wa s sentenc ed six y ears pr ior to its enactment. Finally , by his own admission, the Petitioner’s sentence ha s expired and he has been released from custody

of the Department of Correction.

Accordingly , it is ORDERED that the State’s motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED in ac cordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.



### _______________

_________________

____ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE