# FILED September 10, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE AUGUST SESSION, 1998

JACK IE R. RO BINS ON, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9711- CR-00525 ) Appe llant, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON . CHE RYL BLAC KBU RN, MICHAEL DUTTON, Warden, ) JUDGE and STATE OF TENNESSE E, ) ) Appellee. ) (HABEAS CORPUS)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : JACK IE R. RO BINS ON, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP RMSI Unit 6 Attorney General& Reporter 7475 CockrillBend Industri al Road ELIZABETH B.MARNEY Nashvill e, TN 37209-1010 Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvill e, TN 37243

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION

The Petiti oner, Jacki e Robinson, appeal s as of ri ght the tri al court’ s dismissal of his petition for writ of hab eas co rpus. W e affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.

Petiti oner filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus on March 13, 1995. Petiti oner cla imsthat the TennesseeBoard of Parole s violated h is rights to due process and equal protecti on in viol ation of t he fift h, sixt h and fourteent h amend ments to the United States C onstitution
. Spec if ica ll y, Pet it ion er c lai ms that the B oard refu sed to grant him due process duri ng his most recent parole heari ng by not giv ing h im a continuance and by not prov iding hi m with counsel. He states that th e Boa rd’s “actions and inactions” denied him his “ rights of earned good-time credits and other credits earned by the pet itioner during his twe nty-on e (21) y ears o f incarc eration in the TDO C.” He claim s that th e Boa rd’s ac tions fo rced h im to lose his trustee status and affectedhis rel ease eligi bilit y date.

It is a well -establi shed princi ple of l aw that the r emedy of habeas corpu s i s limitedin its nature and i ts scope. Archerv. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 161-62 (Tenn. 1993); Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 6 19, 6 26 (Te nn. Crim . App. 19 94). In Tennessee, habeas corpus rel iefis availabl e only if “‘ it appears upon the face of the judgment or the recor

d of the proce eding s upo n whic h the ju dgm ent is rendered’ t hat a co nvic ting court

was without jurisdi ction or au thorit y to sentence a defendant, o r thata defenda nt’s sentence o f imprisonm ent or other restraint ha s expired.” Archer , 851 S.W .2d at164 (citat ion omitted in origi nal). The pet itioner has the burden of establi shing either a void judgment or an il legal conf inement by a preponder ance of the evide nce. Pass arella , 891 S .W .2d at 6 27. Mo reove r, wher e a jud gme nt is not-3-

void, but is m erely voidable, such judgment may not be co llaterally a ttacke d in a su it for habe as corp us relief. Id
.
The c laims presented by Pet itioner are not cogni zable under t he habeas corpus statute. See Tenn . Code Ann. § 2 9-21-10 1 - 130. Petiti oner does not all ege in his peti tion that

he is being i llegal ly confi ned or that t he judgment in hi s case was void. This Court has hel d that if it is clear fr om the face of t he petiti on that the petiti oner is not entit led to reli ef, then t he trialcourt is not requir

ed to hold a hearing or inquire into the all egations i n the peti tion, but may dismiss the pet ition summ arily. Pass arella , 891 S.W.2d at 627. We agree with the trial cou rt’s dism issal of Petiti oner’s petition.
Accordingly , the judg ment of the t rial cour t is af firmed.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

___________________________________ L.T. LAFFERTY, Special Judge