# FILED
December 18, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASHAD RA

SHAD ABDULLA

H ALI ) MUHAMMAD, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C

01-9707-CC-00300 Appellant, ) (No. S9700035

Belo w) ) LINCOLN COUNTY VS. ) ) The Hon. William Charles Lee STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) AFFIRMED PU RSUANT TO R ULE 20 Appellee. ) (Dismissal of Peti tion for Writ of Habea s ) Corpus)
O R D E R This matte r i s before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that th e judgmentin the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.

In this appeal from the dismissal of his petition for

writ of habeas corpus, the appellantraises three issues: 1) whet her the trial judge shoul d have recused himself in this matter, 2) whether

the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, and 3) whether the 1985 indictments under which the appellant was convi cted were fatally defecti ve because they did not specify the mens reas for the offe nses.

We agree with the state t hat th e appellant should have filed hi s habeas corpus petition in Davidson C ounty, rather than Lincol n County, because he was incarcerated at Riverbend Maxi mum Security Institution in Davidson County, Tennessee at the time he filed his petition. Under T.C.A. § 29-21-105, petit ions for habeas corpus relief s hould be made t o the court or judge most c onvenient in point of distance to the application, unless a sufficient reason be given in the petition for not app lying to such court
or judge. Here, the

appellant contends that his peti tion was properly filed in Lincoln County because the origi nal indic tments and record were in the Lincoln County trial court’s possession. This is not a sufficient reason t o give the

Lincoln County trial

court jurisdiction over the appellant’s petition.

Moreover, had the trial court attempted to conver t the petition for writ of-2-

habeas corpus to a petition for post-conviction relief, as authorized by statute, the claim would have been dismissed as time barred. See T.C.A. § 40-30-202; Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157 (T enn. 1993) . According to the appellant’s pleadings, he was convicted in 1985 of burglary, armed robbery, and aggrav

ated rape. There is no record that an appea l was taken after the appell ant was convicted. A ccordingly, eve n if the trial court had considered th e a ppellant’s petition as a peti tion for post-conviction relief, the appellant would have been barred by the one-year statute of limitation.

Without addressing the appell ant ’s other issues, we fin d that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed because the pe tition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in the wrong court.

IT IS, THE REFORE, ORDERED that t he state’s motion to affirm the judgmentof the trial court under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules, is granted, and the judgment of the trial cou rt is affirmed. Costs are tax ed to the appellant.
ENTER, this the ____ day of Dec ember, 1997.

_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUD GE
CONCUR:

_____________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDG E

_____________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE