### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs J

anuary 9, 2001 DAVID A. CROSS v. JAMES M. DUKES, WARDEN Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Lauderdale County

No. 5385 Joseph H. Walker, Judge

No. W2000-02197-CCA-R3-CO - Filed February 9, 2001
Petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court determinedthat petitioner did not receive an illegal sentenc

e, and petitioner

now appeals

this ruli ng. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed J OE G. R ILEY , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVID G. H AYES and A LAN E. G LENN , JJ., joined. David A. Cross, Henning, Tennessee, Pro Se

. Michael E. Moore

, Solicitor Genera

l; Lucian D. Ge

ise, Assistant Attor

ney Gener

al; and Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tenne ssee. OPINION Petitioner was convicted of rape of a child in December 1994. The offense was committed on April 12, 1994. His conviction and twenty-five-yea r sentence were affirmed by this court on direct appeal, and permission to appeal was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. David Arnold Cross , C.C.A. No. 02C01-9505-CC-00133, 1996 WL 125909 (Tenn. Crim. App. filed March 20, 1996, at Jackson), perm. to app. denied (Tenn. September 16, 1996). Petitioner alleges in his petition for writ of habeas corpus that his sent ence of t wenty-five years“at 100%” is illegalsince the 100% provision was not in effect at the time of the offense. He further alleges the original trial court improperly applied cer tain enhancement factors in determining his sentence. These allegations are without merit; therefore, we affirm the judg ment of the trial court. Article

I, § 15 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantees the right to seek habeas corpus relief. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21-101 et seq. codifies the appl icable procedu

res for seeking

a writ. While1 Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-1 3-523 sh ould not be conf used wit h Tenn. Code Ann. § 40 -35-501 (i). The latter sta tute also provides for no releas e eligibility for certain offenses. Th e latter statute app lies to offens es committ ed on or after July 1, 199 5. -2- there is no statutory tim

e limit in which to file for habeas corpus relief, Tennessee law provides very narrow grounds upon which such relief may be granted. Taylor v. Sta te , 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). A habeas corpus pe tition may be used only to contest void judg

ments which are f

acially invalid beca

use (1) the convic

ting court was wi

thout jurisdiction or

authority to

sentence a def

endant; or (2) defendant’s sentence has expired. Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 523(b) provides th at one convicted

of chil d rape shall serve the entire sentence undiminished by sentence reduction credits. Subparagr aph (c) further provides that release eligibility status and parole do not apply to one convicted of child rape. Petitioner contends these provisions do not apply to him since this statute was not in effect at the time of the offense. He, therefore, contends he could only be sentenced as a Range I sta

ndard offender

with a 30% releas

e eligi bility date. Contrary to petitioner’s allegations, this statute was enacted in 1992 an d becam e effective July 1, 1992. See 1992 Public A cts, Chap ter 878, §§ 1, 5. Since this offense was committed in 1994, the statute was properly

applied to petitione

r. The judgment p

roperly re flects he was sentenced as a “Child Rapist.” 1 Petitioner next alleges the trial court improperly applied certain enhancem ent factors in determinin

g his sentence. The

applicability

of enhancement

factors was dete

rmined on direct a

ppeal. Furthermore, the ap pl icability of enhancement factors is not a proper subject for habe as corpus relief. See Donald R. W

e st v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9812-CC-00437, 1999 WL 84049, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. filed February 19, 1999, at Knoxville). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

___________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE