### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 7, 200 7
PA UL T. DA VIS v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal from t he Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2001-A- 483 Monte Wat kin s, Jud ge

No. M2006- 01831-CCA -R3-HC - Filed Dece mber 3, 2007

The Petitioner, Paul Tobias Da vis, appea ls the s ummary di smissal of his petition for habe as cor pus relief . In his petition, the Petit ioner a sserted that his sentence is illegal be cause he wa s denied pretria l jail c redits. The habea s corpus court summarily dismissed the petition because the petition didno t state a su ff

ic ie nt re a so n fo r n ot b e ing fi le d inthe c ou nty ne are st t o th e Pe tit ion e r. On app e a l, the Petitioner ra i s es two issues: (1) whe ther a motion filed in the habea s corpus c ourt to alter or
a me ndthe jud gme nt p ur su a nt t o Ru le 59 .0 4 o f the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f C ivi l Pr oc e du rec a n o pe rate to limi t the jurisdiction of this C ourt; and (2) whether the fa ct that the co nvicting court possesses rele vant re cords r elating t o a p etitioner’s sente nce and reta ins the authority to corre ct an illegal
se nte nc e a t a ny tim e is a

su ff ic ie nt re a so n un de r T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 2 9- 21 -1 05 to f ile
a ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionin the c on vic tin g co urt ra the r tha n th e c ou rt c los e st i n p oin t of

dis ta nc e to a petitioner. Following our re view, we hold that motions filed pursua nt to Rul e 59 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil P roce dure do not e ffe ct the jurisdiction of this Court i n actions for habea s corpus re lief and that the Petitioner prese nted a suff icient re ason for

filing his petiti on in the Davidson County Crim inal Court. Accor dingly, we re verse the judg m ent of the ha beas c orpus court and
rema nd for the a

ppointment of counsel and f urther pr ocee dings consistent with thi s opinion.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Cr im ina l C our t R e ve r se d; Rem anded

D AVI D H. W ELL ES , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which, D. K EL LY T HOMAS , J R ., J., joined. J A M ES C UR W OOD W I TT , J R ., J., filed a dissenting and c oncurring opinion.
Paul T. Davis, Pro Se.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr ., Attorne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Br e nt C. Ch e rry, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; Victor S

. Johnson, III, D istrict Attorney Ge nera l; and Roger Moore , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.A ft er t he j udgm ent be ca m e fi nal , t he Pe t i t i oner fi l ed a pr o s e “P et i t i on f or Pr et r i al J ai l Cr edi t A nd/ or Pe t i t i on 1 fo r W rit o f C e rtio ra ri” c h a llen g in g th e c a lc u la tio n o f h is s e n te n c in g c re d its d u rin g h is in c a rc e ra tio n in th e c o u n ty jail f r o m J u l y 8 , 2 0 0 1 , u n t i l A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 0 2

. S e e P a u l T o b i a s D a v i s v
. S t a t e , N o

. M2 0 0 4

- 0 2 3 7 8

- C C A

- R 3

- C O , 2 0 0 5 WL 4 6 8 3 0 1 , at *1 (T en n

. C ri m

. A p p

. , N ashv i l l e, Feb

. 24 , 20 0 5 ). T h e t ri al co u rt dis m i ss ed t h e p et i t i o n , a n d th is C o u rt affi r m ed pur s uant t o Rul e 20 of t he Rul es of

t he Cour t of

Cr i m i nal A ppea l s , c oncl udi ng t hat t he t r i al c our t di d not ha ve j ur i s di ct i on ove r t he m at t er a nd t hat t he pr oper ave nue by w hi ch t o addr es s s ent enc e r educ t i on cr edi t s w as t hr ough t he A d m i n i st rat i v e Pro ced u res A ct

. See i d

. at *2 (ci t i n g T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 -5-1 0 1 , et

. s eq

. ).
-2- OP IN ION Factual and Procedural History A gra nd jury indicted t h e P et i t i o n er for two c ounts of child rape . He e ntere d into a plea agre ement with the S tate and pled guilty to two counts of aggra vated se xual battery. On April 17, 20 02 , th e Da vid so n Co un ty C ri min a l Court ent e re d judg me nt on his gu ilt y p le a s a ndse nte nc e d h im to ten year s fo r ea ch off ense, or dering that the se ntence s be ser ved conc urre ntly at 100%. In
e xc ha ng e fo r this se nte nc e , th e Pe tit ion e r a gr e e d to waive his pr e tr ia l jail c re dit s. 1 On May 22, 2006, the Petitioner f iled a petition for ha

bea s co rp u s relief

in the convicting court—the D avidson County Criminal Court. At that time, the Petitioner was inca rce rate d in the Har deman County Corre ctional Facility, located in Whiteville. I n the petition, the Petitioner made the following statement as to why he filed it there:

Jurisdiction for this cause of action is confe rre d upon this Honorable Court by the following:

1. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29- 21-101 et seq.
The [P]e titioner h er eb y co n t en d s t h att h e C ri m i n al C o u rt o f D avidson County, Tenne ssee is most convenient to thi s petition, and the [trial judge] is the judge that sentenc e [sic] the [P ]etitioner and due to the illegal sentenc e imposed, the trial judge “may c orre ct an illegal, a s opposed to [a mer ely] e rrone ous[,] sente nce at any time[,] even if it has become final.” (quoting State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Te nn. 1978)).

The p e ti ti o nav e r

red that he was e ntitled to habeas c orpus re lief bec ause the sentenc e imposed by the trial court was illegal, void, “a nd in dir ect contra vention of an expre ss statute.” Specif ically, he re lied upon State v. Richard Daniel Filauro, No. M2002-02186-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 840084 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. , N a sh vil le , A pr . 1 6, 20 04 ), to ar gu e that the tr ia l cou rt did no t hav e the auth ority to allow the waive r of his pre trial jail cre dits or to sentence him without granting them. To support his argument, the Petitioner attached c opies of his two judgments of conviction fo r a gg ra vate d s e xu a l batte ry . T he fi rs t ju dg me nt f orm st a te s th a t “ the [P e tit ion e r] a gr e e s to fo rf e it pretria l jail credit,” and the s econd judgment indicates that the Petitioner ha s n o p re tr ia l ja il c re dit

.A l t ho ug h t he Pet i t i on er ’ s R ul e 5 9 m ot i on d oes n ot co nt ai n an offi ci al “fi l e st am p” dat e, a re s po nd i ng l et t er 2 f r om t he cour t s t at es t hat t he m ot i on w as fi l ed on A ugus t 14, 2006.
-3- Without holding an evidentiary he aring or a ppointing counsel to repr esent the Petitioner, the habea s corpus c ourt enter ed an or der on July 20, 200 6 , d ismiss ing his petiti on beca use it was not fi le d inthe c ou nty ne are st t o h im:

Th e [P ]e tit ion e r i s a n in ma te in the Te nn e sse e De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n[ ] i n [the] H arde man County Corrections Facility in Whiteville, Tennesse e and ha s filed [his] petition in [the] Da vidson County C riminal Court in Nashville, Tennesse e. Th is C ou rt

c los e ly r e vie we d th e pe tit ion , c ou rt fi le , inlig ht of

the app lic able Tenne ssee law . The Court finds t hat t he [P]e titioner has fa iled to [indicate] a re ason fo r n ot f ili ng in the ne are st c ou nty a nda s a re su lt, his pe tit ionsh a ll b e re sp e c tf ull y denied.

See Te nn. Code Ann. § 29-21-105 ( stating that applications for ha beas c orpus re lief “should be made to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the a pplicant, unless a suff

icient
rea son be given in the pe tition for not applying to such court or judge” ). Following t he habe as cor

pus court’s ruling, the P etitioner filed a mot ion to alter a nd amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59 of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil P roce dure in the ha beas c orpus c ou rt

. Se e Te nn . R. Civ . P. 59 .0 4. Inthe Rul e 59 mot ion , th e P eti tio ne r s ta te d th a t “ a mot ionto 2 alter and amend the order is the appropriate reme dy to a llow the [habe as corpus court ] t o corr ect err ors and r econside r the proof and applica

ble law, r esulting from the court overlooking or failing to consider matter s established in the rec ord.” See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01(4) (stating that a motion to alter or amend the judgment is one of four moti ons contemplated by the rules of civil proce dure “for extending the time for taking steps in the regula r appe llate proc ess”) . Refer encing Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-105, the Petitioner again stated that the Davidson County Criminal Court could properly rule on the merits of his petiti on:

The Petitioner alleges beca use the Criminal Court for Davids o n C ounty, Division I, can c orre ct an illegal se ntence at any time and is in possession of the
rec ords pertaining to the sentence [sic]. This [c ]ourt has [ the] c onvenienc e of ha ving the re cords pr esent providing a sufficie nt r eason f or this court to exe rcise jurisdiction despite t he terms of [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 29-21-105, “which state s that th e ha

be a s c or pu s a pp lic ati on sh ou ld b e ma de to the c ou rt or jud ge mos t convenie nt [i]n point of distance to the a pplicant.” In support of this contention, the Petitioner quoted State v. Noah J

. Love, No. E2000- 00254-CCAR3-CD, 2001 WL 523373, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxvil le, May 16, 2001) ( stating that a pane l of this Court had previously ruled that when a pe titioner seeks re lief fr om an illegal sentenc e by way of ha be a s c or pu s, he ma y d o s o inthe c on vic tin g c ou rt rathe r tha n th e c ou rt

c los e st t o h im “ be c aus e the forme r can corr ect a n illegal sentenc e at any time and is in possession of the re cords pe rtaining-4-

to the sentenc e”) (citing State v. Donald Ree Jones, No. M2000-00381- CCA-R3- C D, 2000 WL 1520012, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., Nashville, Oct. 13, 2000))

. The Petitioner then essentially re submitt ed his argume nt that the trial court did not have the authority to allow him to waive his pretria l jail cre dits because doing so was in direc t contrave ntion of an e xpress statute, Te nnessee Code Annotated section 40-23-101( c). This provision states that tr ia l c ou rt s a

re to r e nder judgm e nts of c on vic tio n s o th a t de fe nd a nts area ff or de d c re dit

fo r t ime
se rv e d inja il p ri or

to t ri a l:

Th e tr ia l c ou rt sh a ll, a t th e tim e the se nte nc e is i mpo se d a nd the de fe nd a nt i s committed to jail, the workhouse or the state pe nitentiary for

imprisonment, render the judgment of the c ourt so as to allow the de fendant c redit on the sente nce f or any period of time f

or which the defe ndant was c ommitt ed and hel d i n t h e ci ty jail or juv e nil e c ou rt

de te nti on prior

to waive r of juv e nil e c ou rt jurisd ic tio n, or

c ou nty ja il
or wo rk ho us e , p e nd ing arr a ign me nt andtria l. T he de fe nd a nt sha ll als o re c e ive c re dit on the sentenc e for the time se rved in the jail, w orkhouse or penitentiary subse quent to any conviction arising out of the original off

ense f or which the defe ndant was tried.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 23-101(c ). In support of t h i s ar g u m ent, the Petitioner again cited State v. Richard Da n iel Filauro. See Filauro, 2004 WL 8400084, at *4–5 (holding that the defe ndant’s sentenc e wa s illegal because the trial c ourt allowed the waiver of pre trial jail cre dits in di rec t contra vention of an e xpress statutory provision—Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 40-23-101( c))

.

The ha beas c orpus court did not is sue a f ormal ruling on the R ule 59 motion; howeve r, on August 23, 2006, a re sponding letter from the c ourt’s law c lerk to the P etitioner m ade it evident that the c ou rt ’s pr e vio us or de r su mma ri ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ionfo r f a ilu reto f ile in the c or

re c t c ou nty was its final ruling. The Petitioner f iled a notice of

appea l on August 25, 2006.

Ana lys is I. Ef fe c t o f the Pe ti ti one r ’s mo ti on t o a lt e rand a me nd On app e a l, the Pe tit ion e r f ir st a rg ue s th a t th is C ou rt

la c ks ju ri sd iction t o h e ar this c a se beca use he “ filed an a

ppropriate post-trial mot i on” in the habe as cor pus court. Specif

ically, he contends that this Court does not have jurisdiction because the habe as cor pus court has not rule d on his mot ion to al te r or a me nd the jud gme nt fi le d pur su a nt to Ru le 59 of the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f C ivi l Procedur e and that, under Rule 4 of the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Procedur e, the ha beas c orpus court maintains jurisdiction over the case until it rules on his Rule 59 motion. S ee T enn. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). T he State does not a ddress this a rgument in its appellate brief. Howeve r, we c onclude that a motion f

iled pursuant to Rule 59 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil P roce dure doe s not lim it the jurisdiction of this C ourt in appea ls from the denia l of habe as cor pus relief

. The Petitioner is corr ect that ha beas c orpus ac tions c o n s t i t u t e a collate ral attack on a petitioner’s judgment of c onviction and ar e ther efor e esse ntially civil in nature; howe ver, the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Proc edure apply only to the extent that they a re c onsistent with the statutesT h e n o tice is d a te d A u g u st 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , b u t t h e re c o rd d o e s n o t re fle c t t h e d a te it w a s d e liv e re d to th e a p p ro p ria te 3 i ndi vi dual a t t he cor r ec t i onal f ac i l i t y w her e t he Pe t i t i oner i s i nca r ce r at ed. Se e Tenn. R. Cr i m

. P. 49( d) ; Tenn. R. A pp. P. 20 (g).
-5- governing ha

beas corpus actions, Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-101, e t. seq. See Joseph Miles v. State, No. M2006-02088-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 1828879, at *5 (T enn. C rim. App., Nashville, June 26, 2007) ; J o h n J

. Vi l laneuva v. State, No. 03C01-9611-CR-00425, 1997 WL 607499, at *1 n.5 (Te nn. Crim. App., Knoxville, O ct. 3, 1997). One of those statutes provides that

“ [a ]n y p arty, e ith e r re la tor or de fe nd a nt, in any ha

be a s c or pu s c a se sh a ll h a ve the ri gh t of app e a l to the prope r appellate court from any judgment or decr ee r ender ed against such party by an infe rior court” ; however , this provision does “not apply t o parties held in custody in criminal cases.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21- 127. Although the habea s corpus statutes do not specific ally provide c riminal de fe nd a nts wh o a

re be ing he ld in c us tod y the ri gh t of app e a l, the ri gh t is pr ov ide d by Te nn e sse e Rul e of Ap p el l at e P ro ce dure 3( b). See Te nn. R. App. P. 3(b). Appellate Rule 3(b) is subtitled as “Ava ilability of Appeal as of Right by Defendant in Crimi nal Actions,” and it pr ovides for the right of criminal defendants to appeal in s p ec ified situations, including from “a f inal judgment in a . . . ha be a s c or pu s .

. . proceed in g. ” Id. Th is r ule ind ic a te s th e re fo rethat, f or the pu rp os e s o f a

pp e a l, habea s corpus c ases involving incar cer ated c riminal defe ndants are “criminal actions.” See id. Our supreme c ourt’s opinion in Tragle v. Burde tte, 438 S.W

. 2 d 7 3 6 (Tenn. 1969) , supports this view. In Tra gle, the court stated that habe as cor pus actions that “involve de tention for the c ommissi on of
a crime” are “essentially criminal,” and there fore , appea ls in such cases shoul d be made to the court of criminal appeals. Id. at 737. In viewing this appea l as a c riminal action, we note that the Tenne ssee Rules of Cr i m i n al Procedur e do not contemplate a motion to alter and amend the judgment, and there fore such a motion will not ope rate to limit the jurisdiction of this C ourt. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(c)

. Having conc luded that the Petitioner’s motion to alter and amend filed in the ha beas c orpus c ou rt do e s n ot a ff

e c t th is C ou rt ’s abil ity to e nte rt a in this app e a l, we turn o ur a tte nti on to w he the r h is notice of a

ppeal was timely filed. The notice of appe al was f iled on August 25, 2006, thirty-six days
a ft e r the ha

be a s c or pu s c ou rt ’s or de r o f d ism iss a l. E ve n th ou gh thi s n oti c e wa s f ile d mo rethan th irty days af ter e ntry of the judgment and c ould theref ore be considere d as untimely, we will waive the 3 thirty-day re quirement in this case in the i ntere st of j ustice and rea ch the merits of the Petitioner’s contentions rega

rding the proper county of filing under Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 29-21- 105. See Te nn. R. App. P. 4(a). We do so in pa rt beca use prior to our holding in this case r egar ding the Petitioner’s Rule 59 motion, it was unc lear whether his filing of that moti on pursuant to the rule s of c ivi l pr oc e du re wo ulde xte ndthe tim e no rm a lly a ff or de d to fi le a

no tic e of a pp e a l. II. Propercounty of filing u nder Tennessee Code Annotate d section 29-21-105 Tenne ssee Code An n otated sec tion 29-21-105 “r equire s one filing a petition for writ of habea s corpus to do so with a court or judge nea rest him, which would gene rally mea n within the county, unless suffic ient rea son be given in the pe tition for not doing so.” Leach v
. Av er y , 387 S.W.2d 346, 347 (Tenn. 1964). In other words, if a habea s corpus pe tition i s filed in a court other than the on e ne are st the pe tit ion e r anddo e s n ot s ta te a ny re a so n w hy it w a s n ot f ile d inthene are st court, it may be dismiss ed for failure to comply with this section. S ee, e .g., Joseph G. Williams, Jr. v. State, No. E2006-00230- CCA-R3-PC, 2006 WL 3410693, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville,-6-

Nov. 27, 2006). However, if a pe tition does state a re ason expla ining why it was filed in a cour t oth e r than the on e ne are st the pe tit ion e r, the pe tit ionma y b e dis mis se d p ur su a nt t o th is s e c tio n o nly if the stated r eason i s i nsufficie nt. See Tenn. Code A nn. § 29-21-105; Ricky Ha rris v. Robert Conley, War den, No. 02C01-9309- CC-00227, 1994 WL 510501, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App., Jackson, Sept. 21, 1994) (Tipton, J., concur ring); s ee also Goforth v. State, 144 S.W.2d 739, 739–40 (Tenn. 1940) (c oncluding that it was a suff icient re ason under

the statute to file in a county other than the county wher e the pa

rties re s i d ed beca

use there was no qua lified judge to hea r the pe tition i n that county); Moses Coury v. Bruce Westbrooks, War den, No. M2003-01800-CCA-R3-PC, 2004 WL 23 46 15 1, a t *3 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. , N a sh vil le , J uly 20 , 20 04 ) ( c on c lud ing that “ fi lin g inthe c ou nty which is more economical for counsel is not a ‘suf

ficient re ason’ unde r sec tion 29-21-105 for f iling
a pe tit ionfo r h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f i n th e c ou rt

of c on vic tio n in ste a d o f the c ou rt mos t c on ve nie nt t o the petitioner” ). The Petitioner in the pre sent ca s e d i d state a r eason f or filing his petition i n Davidson County, where he was c onvicted, rather than in Ha rdema n county, wher e he is inca rce rate d. He
asserted that bec ause the Davidson County Criminal Court possesses the relevant rec ords re garding his allegedly illegal se ntence and re tains the authority to corr ect his sentenc e at anytime, it is an app ro pria te c ou rt in wh ic h to fi le his ha be a s c or pu s a c tio n. In su pp ort of thi s a rg ume nt o n a

pp e a l, the Petitioner aga in re l i es o n State v. Noah J. Love , No. E2000-00254- CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 523373 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, May 16, 2001).

The Petitioner is corr ect that in Love, it was noted that in Jones, t his Court held that when a habe as cor

pus petitioner alleges his sentenc e is illegal, the convicting court may be a proper venue under the terms of Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 29-21-105. Love, 2001 W L 523373, at *2. Spe c if ic a lly , inJo ne s, thi s Co urt st a te d th a t:
Procedur ally, the def

endant se eking habea s corpus re lief should apply to the
c o u r t most conve nient in distance unless a sufficie nt rea son exists to apply elsewher e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-105. We n o t e t hat the convic ting court possesses all of the re c ords rel evant

to a de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e . A lso , th e iss ue re la te s to a vo id sentenc e, which the convicting court can c orre ct at any time, not a void conviction in terms of the ve rdict of guilt. We be lieve these circumstance s provide a sufficie nt rea son for a defe ndant s triving to corr ect an illegal sentenc e to file his habe as cor pus pe tit ionin the c on vic tin g c ou rt

. Jones, 2000 WL 1520012, at *2.

Howeve r, other opinions and or ders issued by this Court have c oncluded that the possession of re levant sente ncing re cords a nd the authority to corr ect an i l l eg al s en t en ce w as not a suff icient
rea son to file in the convicting court rathe r than the closest court. See, e.g., James M. Gra nt v. State, No. M2006-01368-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 2805208, at *2–3 (Te nn. Crim. App., Nashville, Oct. 2, 2006) (memor andum opinion). In Grant, the habea s corpus pe titioner argue d that a suff icient re ason for f iling in t he convic ting court, rathe r than the c ourt closest i n p o i n t of distance , was that “ the convicting court can c orre ct an illegal se ntence at any time and is in possession of re cords pe rtaining to the sentenc e,” and this Court ruled that it had “re peate dly held that this is not a suff icient re ason-7-

for f iling in a court o t h er t h an o ne whe re the petitioner is located.” Id. at *3 (c iting Larry L. Halliburton v. State, No. W2001- 00755-CCA-R3-CO, 2002 WL 1558611, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Ja n. 30, 2002), perm. to a pp. denied, (Tenn. July 1, 2002); Jimmy Wayne Wilson v. State, No. 03C01-9806-CR-00206, 1999 WL 420495, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, June 24, 1999) , perm. to app. de nied, (Te nn. Nov. 22, 1999); Charle s Bryant v. State, No. 03C01-9803-CR-00115, 1999 WL 274849, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, May 4, 1999) ); see also Marvin Anthony Matthews v. State, No. W 2003-00106-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 WL23100812, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., Jackson, De c. 31, 2003) (memora ndum opinion). Howeve r, all of t hese opinions also conc luded that the petition in question was fata lly deficient in other w ays as we ll.

Th is C ou rt ’s un pu bli sh e d opin ion s ar e sp lit on thi s is su e . A ft e r d ue c on sid e ratio n, we ho ld that when a

habea s corpus pe titioner asserts that his sentenc e is illegal, the fact that the convicting
c ou rt po sse sse s r e le va nt r e c or ds a ndre ta ins the auth ority to c or re c t a n il leg al se nte nc e a t a ny tim e is a su ff ic ie nt re a so n und e r T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 2 9- 21 -1 05 fo r the pe tit ion e r t o f ile in th e c o n v ic ti n g c o u r t r a th e r th a n th e c o u r t c lo s e s t in p o in t o f d is tan c e

. Se e J o n es, 2000 WL 1520012, at *2; see a lso Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d at 873. We note that convicting courts will retain the ability to sum marily dismiss petit ions when the pe tition fails t o state a cogniza ble claim for relief

, see Passa rella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 ( Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); Coury, 2004 WL 2346151, at *3 (c iting Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109) , but if it is appar ent on the fac e of the judgment or from the re cord of

the proc eedings that the sentenc e the court previously imposed is illegal (i.e., in direc t contra vention of an e xpress statutory provision), the c onvicting court can corr ect the se ntence

. Conclusion Based on the f

oregoing authorities and re asoning, we c onclude that the Petitioner’ s motion to alter a nd amend f

iled pursuant to the Te nnessee Rules of Civil P ro cedure doe s not affe ct the jurisdiction of this C ourt in t h i s appea l and that the Petitioner did provide a sufficie nt rea son for filing his petition in the convicting court rather in the court closest in point of distance. As such, w e reve rse the ha

beas c orpus court’s order of summary dismissal and re mand for t h e ap p o i n tment of counsel a nd further

proce edings consistent with this opini on.

______________________________ DAVI D H. WE LLES, JUDGE