1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON
LAWRE NCE ALLEN H ODGE v. DAVID MI LLS, W ARDEN Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 5844 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2004-01107-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Dece m ber 13, 2004

The Petitioner, L awr enceAllen Hodg e, appe als the trial court's de nial of his petition for habe as corpus r elief. TheState has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial c ourt' s denial of re lief pursuant to Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. Be causePetitioner has failed to show e ither that his sentenc e has e x pired or that the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction, weg rant the State ' s mo tio n anda ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the low e r c ou rt
. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES a ndJ.C. M C LIN , J J . joined. L awr enceAllen Hodg e, pro se . Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral & Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l Ma rk ham, A ssi stant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
The Petitioner, L awr enceAllen Hodg e, wa s convicted in 1979 of f irst deg reemurder and first deg reecriminal sexual conduct. Se e Lawre nc e Al le n H od ge v . S tate , N o. 03 C01 -9 70 8- CR00332, 1998 WL

283100, at * 1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, J un. 3, 1998), perm. to appeal denied , (Tenn. O ct. 19, 1998). F or these c onvictions, Petit ioner re ceive d two consec utive life2

sentenc es. Id. T h e P et i t i o n eri s cu rr en t l y co n fi n ed atW es tT en n es s ee S t at e P ri s o n i n He n n i n g, Tenne ssee. On Marc h 22, 2004, Petitioner filed a pr o se habe as cor pus petition seeking relief from numerous sente nces. The se sentenc es not only included the 1979 c onviction for murde r and criminal sexual conduct but also 1974 convic tions for assault with attempt to commit first deg ree murder, two c ounts of taking the automobile of another for temporary

use without consent of the owner , two counts of sec ond deg reeburg lary , burg lary of an automobile, and a 1986 convic tion fo r h old ing a

ho sta g e wh ile a

priso ne r. As ba sis fo r h abe a s r e lie f, Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t hi s se nte nc e s h a ve e xpir e d andthat th e Te nn e sse e De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n f a ile d to c or

re c tly compute his sentenc e. On April 7, 2004, the trial court summarily dismiss ed the pe tition findi ng that the Petitioner’s conse cutive life se ntence s have not e x pired. Petitioner timely filed a notice of appe al. Habe as cor

pus relief is available in this state only when it appe ars on the f

aceof the judgme nt or the re cord that the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction to convict or sente nce the defe ndant or that the se ntence of imprisonment has otherw ise expired. Archer v . State, 851 S.W. 2d15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Potts v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) . U nli ke thepo stc on vic tio n p e tit ion , th e pu rp os e of theha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionis t o c on te st a vo id, no t me re ly voidable, judg ment. State ex re l. Newsome v. He nderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1968). A pe titioner cannot c ollatera lly attack a fac ially valid conviction in a habe as cor pus proce eding

. Potts v. State, 83 3 S. W.2 d 6 0, 62 (T e nn . 1 99 2) ; Sta te ex re l. H olb ro ok v . B om ar , 21 1 T e nn . 2 43 , 3 64 S.W. 2d88 7, 88 8 ( 19 63 ). Mo re ov e r, wh e n th e ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ionfails to de mon str a te that th e jud g me nt i s v oid , a tria l c ou rt

may pr op e rl y dis mis s th e pe tit ionwi tho ut a hearing. See Hi c k

ma n v . S tate , – S.W .3d –, 2004 WL 2563267, at *1 (Te nn. Sept. 2, 2004) ( for publication ) ( c iti ng Te nn . Co de An n. § 2 9- 21 -1 09 (2 00 0) ; Dixon, 70 S.W .3d at 36). Petitioner alleg es that his sentenc es haveexpired. The only plausible basis for Petitioner’s arg ument is that he believe s he should have be en re lease d on parole . At the time of Petitioner’s conviction, an inmate serving a life se ntence was not elig ible for pa role re lease for thirty y ear s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 3613 (1975) ( rec odified at Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-28- 116 (1 98 2) ). Pe tit ion e r w ill no t bee lig ibl e fo r r e le a se un til 20 39 . N otw ith stand ing , e ve n if Pe tit ion e r w e ree lig ibl e fo r p aro le a t th e pr e se nt time , r e le a se e lig ibi lity is d isr e g ard e d in determining whe ther the se ntence has expired. See, e .g., Fred E. Smith v. State, No. 02C01- 9906-CC-00185, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 28, 1999) ( "Par ole does not causethe sentenc e to expire or terminate, but is merely a conditional re lease from confine ment.") , perm. to appeal de nied, (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; Carl Ed L eming v. State, No. 03C01- 96 03 -C C- 00 11 9, sli p o p. a t 3 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. , at K no xvill e , A pr . 2 2, 19 97 ) ( " [R]el e a se elig ibilit y does not amount to an entitlement to immediate re lease .") . Parole doe s not cause the sentenc e to expire or terminate, but is merely a conditional re lease from conf inement. Se e Doy le v. Hampton, 340 S.W .2d 891, 893 (1960). Indeed, e ven thoug h rele ased f rom confine ment, the defe ndant continues in construc tive custody until the ex piration of the f ull term of his sentence

. Howell v. State, 569 S.W .2d 428, 433 (Tenn. 1978)

.3

Pe tit ion e r f

urthe r a sse rt s th a t th e De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n f a ile d to pr op e rl y

c omp utehis se nte nc e . T he qu e sti on of wh e the r the De pa

rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n is pr op e rl y

c a lc ulatin g his sentenc e cannot be raised in a habe as cor pus proce eding . To cha lleng e such c alculations, the Petitioner must procee d under the Uniform Administrative Proce dures Ac t in the Chancery Court for Davidson County , Tenne ssee.
The Petitioner has not e stablished that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief. He has alleg ed neither

a fa cially invalid judgment nor

an expired sentenc e. Acc ording ly , it is ordered that th e State ’s motionis g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is a ff irme d ina c c or danc e wi th Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE