# FILED
June 24, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JANUARY SESSION, 1998
CHARLES D. PRI CE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9702- CR-00042 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON . SETH N ORM AN STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Habea s Corpu s - Relief)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : THOMAS A. LONGABERGER JOHN KNOX WALKUP 300 James Robertson Parkway Attorney Generaland Reporter Nashvill e, Tn 37201 ELLEN H. POLLACK Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashvill e, Tn 37243 VICTOR S . JOHN SON Distri ct Attor ney General STEVE DOZIER Assistant Distri ct Attor ney Washington Sq., Ste. 500 222-2n d Aven ue No rth Nashvill e, TN 37201-1649
ORDER FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE-2- 

# ORDER

On November 17, 1995, Appel lant , Charles D. Price, en tered a g uilty plea to being a habit ual motor vehi cle offe nder. After the plea, but before sentenc ing, Appellant

broke his back. As a resul t of re quiring medi cal care and physical therap y to help him recove r from his accident, Appellant agr eed to a three year and one day sentenc e so that he co uld be sent to the Special Ne eds Facility. Appellant

began serv ing h is s ente nce November 2 0, 19 95. Hewas granted parole on Febru ary 7, 1997, but was rein carcerated af ter a parol e violat ion on March 4, 1997. Appell ant fil ed a writ of habeas corpus in t he trialcourt, cl aiming thatthe se ntenc e imp osed in his ca se wa s illegal in that he was im properl y sentenced as a Ra nge II offen der. App ellant was released from sta te custo dy in November 30, 1997.

It is a we ll -es tablis hed princi ple of l aw that the r emedy of habeas corpus is limited in scop e as w ell as reli ef. Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 161- 162(Tenn. 1993). As the Sup reme C ourt held in Archer v. State , a proper pet ition for habe as co rpus re lief ma y be bro ught a t any tim e, while the pe tit ioner i s incarcerated to contest a void judgment or an ill egal confinement. The remedy of
a habeas writ is li mited to cases wher e the judgm ent is void or the term of imprisonmenthas expired. Further, "the only relief thatcan be given a pr isoner in a state ha beas c orpus p roceed ing is relea se." State v. Warren , 740 S. W. 2 d 427, 42 8 (Ten n. Crim. A pp.198 6).-3- As a general rul e, Tennessee courts will not e ntertain a case that is moot. A case will genera lly be considered moot if it no longer se rve s a s a me ans to providerelief to the pre vailing party. See McIntyre v. Traughber , 884 S.W.2d 134, 137 (Tenn. App. 1994) . The two most recogni zed exceptio ns to the mootness rule inc lude issues of great publi c interest and importance to the administrat ion of justice and is sues capa ble of repeti tion yet evading review. Id
. Whether to take up case s that fit i nto one of t he recognized exceptions to the mootn ess do ctrine is disc retionary w ith the app ellate cou rts. Id
.

It is apparent

that the i nstant case i s moot since Appell ant is no l onger in state custody. Moreover, f rom our revi ew of the recor d, it does

not appear that this case fall s within one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

IT IS, THER EFOR E, ORD ERED by the Court thatthe above-st yled appeal is hereby di smissed pursuant t o Court of Cri minal Appeals Rule20. Costs are taxed to the state.

____________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE