FILED

June 24, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JANUARY SESSION, 1998

CHARLES D. PRICE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9702-CR-00042

)

Appellant, )

)

) DAVIDSON COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. SETH NORMAN

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appellant. ) (Habeas Corpus - Relief)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

THOMAS A. LONGABERGER JOHN KNOX WALKUP

300 James Robertson Parkway Attorney General and Reporter

Nashville, Tn 37201

ELLEN H. POLLACK

Assistant Attorney General

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, Tn 37243

VICTOR S. JOHNSON

District Attorney General

STEVE DOZIER

Assistant District Attorney

Washington Sq., Ste. 500

222-2nd Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37201-1649

ORDER FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-2-

ORDER

On November 17, 1995, Appellant, Charles D. Price, entered a guilty plea

to being a habitual motor vehicle offender. After the plea, but before sentencing,

Appellant broke his back. As a result of requiring medical care and physical

therapy to help him recover from his accident, Appellant agreed to a three year

and one day sentence so that he could be sent to the Special Needs Facility.

Appellant began serving his sentence November 20, 1995. He was granted

parole on February 7, 1997, but was reincarcerated after a parole violation on

March 4, 1997. Appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, claiming

that the sentence imposed in his case was illegal in that he was improperly

sentenced as a Range II offender. Appellant was released from state custody in

November 30, 1997.

It is a well-established principle of law that the remedy of habeas corpus

is limited in scope as well as relief. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 161-

162(Tenn. 1993). As the Supreme Court held in Archer v. State, a proper petition

for habeas corpus relief may be brought at any time, while the petitioner is

incarcerated to contest a void judgment or an illegal confinement. The remedy of

a habeas writ is limited to cases where the judgment is void or the term of

imprisonment has expired. Further, "the only relief that can be given a prisoner

in a state habeas corpus proceeding is release." State v. Warren, 740 S.W.2d

427, 428 (Tenn. Crim. App.1986). 
-3-

As a general rule, Tennessee courts will not entertain a case that is moot.

A case will generally be considered moot if it no longer serves as a means to

provide relief to the prevailing party. See McIntyre v. Traughber, 884 S.W.2d

134, 137 (Tenn. App. 1994). The two most recognized exceptions to the

mootness rule include issues of great public interest and importance to the

administration of justice and issues capable of repetition yet evading review. Id.

Whether to take up cases that fit into one of the recognized exceptions to the

mootness doctrine is discretionary with the appellate courts. Id.

It is apparent that the instant case is moot since Appellant is no

longer in state custody. Moreover, from our review of the record, it does not

appear that this case falls within one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED by the Court that the above-styled

appeal is hereby dismissed pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

Costs are taxed to the state.

____________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

___________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE