# FILED
July 30, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE RICKY EAR LS, ) ) Appellant, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C 01-9710-CR-00500 ) (No. 2640 Belo w) VS. ) DAVIDSON COUNTY ) RICKY BELL, WARDEN, ) The Hon. Seth Norman ) (Dismissal ofHabeas Corpus Petition) Appellee. ) AFFIRMED PU RSUANT TO R ULE 20

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion req ues ting that the judgmentin the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. Upon reviewing the record and the pleadings in this case, we find that it is an appropriate matt er for affirmance under Rule 20.

From the record, it appears that the petitioner pled guilty to several offenses in Bedford County

on November 10, 1994, and was sentenced to an effective sentence of five years. The record also reflects that the petitioner was sentenc ed for a parole violation at the same time. Thereafter, the judgments in Bedford County were s et aside, a n d eventual ly, the indictment for these charges was dismis sed based on the grand jury returning a superseding indictment. Subsequently, the petitioner a p pears to have pled guilty to larceny and theft, receiv ing an effective sentence of three year s. The petitioner also pled guilty to burg lary in Coffee County on M ay 8, 1996, and received a conc urrent three-year

sentence. Alth ough not in the record, ther e is a certified copy of an or der dismissing the case attac hed to the petitioner’s bri ef.

On October 9, 1997, the petitioner fileda habeas corpus petition, arg uing that time served and credits ear ned on his sentences that wer e set aside in Bedford Co unty should be applied to his more recent se ntences from Cof fee Coun ty. In denying relief, the trial court h eld that

after re viewi ng the Coffee County judg ments at fa ce value, th e sentenc es had not expired. Although the petitioner is curr

ently released on parole,he argues that parole constitutes a restraint.

It is a well-established pr inciple of law that the r

emedy of habeas corpus islimited in its nature and its scope. Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 161-162 (Tenn.1993);

Passarella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 626 (Tenn . Crim. App.1994). In Tennessee, habeas corpus relief is available only if "'it appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon whic h the judgment is rendered,' thata convicting court was without j urisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant's senten ce o f imprisonment

or other restraint has ex pired." Archer v. State , 851 S. W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn.1993) (citation omitted in ori ginal). In the present c ase, on the face o f the judgments, the petitioner’s sentence has not expired. Time serv ed on other offenses , regardless of whether those convictions have since been reversed, is not r elevant. See , e.g ., Trigg v. State , 523 S.W.2d 375, 37 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to a ffir m the judgmentof the trial court under Rule 20, TennesseeCourt of Criminal Appeals Rules, is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. It appeari ng that the petitioner is indigent, costs of these proceedings are tax ed to the state.

_____________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:

_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUD GE

_____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE