# FIL ED M arch 26 , 200 8 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON AU GU ST 1996 S ESSI ON
J ER OM E SY D N EY

B AR R ETT , *

* Appel lan t, * VS. * * STATE OF TENN ESSEE , * * Appel lee
. *

* C. C. A. #02C 01- 9508- CC -0 0233

L AK E CO UNT Y Hon . J oe G. R il ey , J r. , J udg e (Habea s Corpus)

For Appel lan t: Jerome Sy dney

Bar re tt Pro Se Lake Count y

Regi ona l Correction al F a c il it y Rt . 1, Box

330 Tipton v il le, TN 38079 For Appel lee : Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter Ellen H. Pollack Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l Cr imi nal Ju sti ce Di v is ion 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 C. Phi ll ip Bi v ens Di str ic t Attor ney

Gene ra l P.O. Draw er E Dy ersburg , TN 380 24
OPIN ION F ILED :

AFF IR ME D

GARYR . W AD E, J UD GE2 OPIN ION The peti ti oner

appeal s t he tr ial co urt' s d eni al of his peti ti on for a w ri t of habeas co rp us. There w as no ev ide nti ar y hear ing
. W hil e the peti ti oner su bmit s a n extens iv e br ief out li nin g a nu mber of is sues , w e hav e s ummari z ed hi s c lai ms as follows: (1 ) w hether the tr ial co urt er re d w hen i t det er mined that sent ence re form l eg is lat ion adopt ed i n 1979 and 1989 di d notappl y

to peti ti oner 's se ntenc e; (2 ) w hether

the subs eq uent sent ence re form ac ts deny peti ti oner

eq ual protec ti on unde r the l aw and due p ro c e s s o f

t h e la w; (3 ) w hether

the peti ti oner 's se ntenc e i s c ru el and unusu al puni shment ; (4 ) w hether

the tr ial co urt er re d by not appoi nti ng couns el to representthe peti ti oner dur ing thi s h abeas co rp u s p ro ce e d in g; (5 ) w hether

the tr ial co urt er re d by not all ow ing the peti ti oner

an e v ide nti ar

y hear ing on t his peti ti on; a nd (6) w het her the trial court erred by det ermin ing that it did no t have jurisdiction to a lter the p etition er's sente nce in a habea s c or pus proceed ing
. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.
T h e rec o rd do e s n o t in clu d e th e ori gin a l ju d gm e n t. Th e pl e a d in gs ind ic ate t he pet it ion er

w as conv ic ted o f rape in 1976 an d s entenc ed to a t er m of si xty y ears. In 1979 an d the n ag ain i n 1989, our st ate l eg is lat ure c hang ed th e statu te w hich gov erne d the sente nce for the o f fense . Th e pe titione r filed this peti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us in June of 1995. The tr ial co urt den ied the peti ti on w it hout an ev ide nti ar

y hear ing , hol din g thati t had no j ur is dicti on to modi fy the s e n t e n c e a n d r u l i n g t h a tt h e p e t i t i o n e r w a s n o te n t i t l e d t o h a b e a s c o r p u s re l i e f.3 Ini ti all y , w e mustpoi nt ou t t hat h abeas co rp us is l imi ted i n s cope. The w ri t of habeas co rp us, co difie d at Tenn. C ode An n. §§ 29- 21- 101 t o - 130, w il l is sue only i n the case of

a v oid jud gmen t or to f ree a prison er held in cust ody af ter his ter m of impr is onment h as ex pired. Stat e ex rel. H all v . M eadow s, 389 S. W .2d 2 56, 259 ( Tenn. 1965 ). U nli ke the p ost -c onv ic ti on pet it ion , t he pur pose of a habeas cor pus peti ti on i s t o c ontes t v oid , and not merel y v oid abl e, j udg ments. See S tate ex rel. N ew som v . H enderson, 424 S.W .2d 1 86, 1 89 ( Tenn. 1968 ). "A peti ti oner canno t c oll aterall y

att ack a faci all y

v ali d c onv ic ti on i n a h abeas co rp us proceed ing ." Pot ts v . Stat e, 83 3 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Ten n. 19 92). Ha b e a s co rp u s a c t io n s m a y, how ev er , be broug ht t o c ontes t an il leg al confine ment atany ti me w hil e the peti ti oner

i s i ncarcerated. Archer v . St ate, 851 S. W .2d 1 57, 1 64 ( Tenn. 1993 ).
I The peti ti oner

as ser ts that he i s b ein g hel d bey ond t he ex pirati on dat e of his se ntenc e. He arg ues that the 1 989 C ri minal Sent enci ng R eform Ac t repeal ed the l aw appl ic abl e at the t ime of his se ntenc e and thus , mandat es a resent enci ng w it hin the 1989 g uid eli nes. H e as ser ts that under

the new g uid eli nes he w oul d be enti tl ed to i mmediat e rele ase.

W e can notagree. Th e langua ge of Te nn. Code An n. § 40 -35-11 7(c) is clear: "For all persons w ho co mm itted crimes prior to July 1, 19 82, prior law shall appl y and re main in full force and effect i n ev er y respect, inc lud ing , butnot li mite d to, sent enci ng , parole and probati on." In S tate ex rel. Ste w art v . M cW her ter , 857 S.W .2d 875 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 92), th is court held thatthe " 198 9 Sen ten cing Act p ro vid e s t h a tita p p li e s o n ly t o t h o s e o f fe n d e rs wh o a re se n t e n c e d a f t e r i t s e f fe c t ive da te " o n N ov em be r

1 , 19 89
. I d. a t 87 6. W hi l e th e 19 89 A c t be ne fi tt ed s om e offenders w ho c ommitt ed th eir cr imes betw een 198 2 and 1989 an d w ere s entenc ed4 after it s e ff ect iv e dat e, i t doe s n ot ap ply to the p eti ti oner . See Tenn. C ode An n. § 40-3 5-11 7(b). Th e Criminal Se nte ncing Reform Actof 198 9, by its express language, d id "no t af

fect rights and du ties tha t ma tured , pen alties th at w ere inc ur re d, or

proceed ing s t hat w ere beg un before i ts effect iv e dat e." 1989 Tenn. Pub. Act s c h. 59 1, § 115. Those persons w ho had been c onv ic ted o f cr imes pr ior to July 1, 19 82, such as th e pe titione r, remain ed u nde r the "p rior l aw ... in every re spect, inc lud ing , butnot li mite d to, se ntenc ing , parole and probati on." Tenn. C ode Ann. § 40- 35- 117( c)
.

In the a lt er nati v e, t he pet it ion er arg ues that Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 114 ( 1975) , w hic h has been re peal ed and re pla ced by § 39 -1 -1 05 ( 1982) and lat er § 39- 11- 112 ( 1989) , w oul d req uire the st ate t o reduce hi s s entenc e. The peti ti oner cl aims that§ 39 -1 14 mus t be appl ied bec ause itw as the s tatut e i n forc e bot h at the ti me of the offense and his se ntenc e:

39- 114. R epea led o r am end ed law s- -A pp licat io n in pr osec ut io n fo r o ff

ense -- W henev er

any penal st atute or penal l eg is lat iv e ac t of the sta te i s repeal ed or amended by

a s ubseq uent leg is lat iv e ac t, any offense, as defined b y

su ch sta tute or

ac t bei ng repeal ed or am end ed, comm itted w hile such statu te or act was i n f ull force and effect s hal l be prosec uted under su ch actor sta tute in effectat the t ime of the c ommis si on of the of fense . In the ev entthe sub sequen t act provides for a lesser pen alty, anypun ishm entimpo sed sh all be in acc ordance w it h the su bseq uent act
. (e mphasi s a dded)
. The peti ti oner cl aims the defini ti on of "prosec uti on" i ncl udes the total per iod dur ing w hic h he is se rv ing hi s s entenc e under the pr ior l aw ; he ass erts tha t any fa v orab le chan ges in the sen ten cing statute mustbe ap plied to his sent ence.

W e c annot ag re e. The ter m "prosec uti on" does not inc lud e the5 enforcem entof

the sen ten ce. Sect ion 39 -114 , Te nn. Code An n., a pplies o nly in cas es w here the ac cus ed i s t o be tr ied under the subs tanti v e l aw

i n effectat the ti me of the offense and a new st atute , c all ing for a l ess er puni shment , i s e nact ed be fore th e i mp os i ti on o f t he s en te nc e. H ere th e pe ti ti on er w as s en te nc ed s om e three y ears be fore the f irst change in the rape sta tute in 1979 and thirteen y ears before t he s econd i n 1989.
II and II I

The peti ti oner

cl aims thathi s l eng thi er se ntenc e deni es eq ual protec ti on unde r the l aw and due proces s o f the l aw . Ar ti cl e 11, se cti on 8 of the Tenness ee C onst it uti on prohi bit s l eg is lat ion prov idi ng fav orabl e treatment to an y ind iv idu al or

cl ass of ind iv idu als
. The Fou rt eenth Amendment to t he U nit ed St ates Con sti tuti on i s c los ely

ak in to ou r sta te' s c onst it uti onal prov is ion
. See M ar ion Coun ty, T enn ., Riv er Tran sp. Co. v. Stokes, 1 17 S. W .2d 740 (Ten n. 19 38). All persons si mil ar ly

si tuate d mustbe t re ated ali ke. The l eg is lat ure may , how ev er , t re at a class of

person s dif

feren tly so long as the classif ication has a reaso nab le re lat ion shi p to a l eg it imat e s tate int erest
. In Sta te ex rel. Bob by L. Crum v . Ned McW herte r, et al., ou r court app lied this "ratio nal ba sis" test in sim ilar circum stan ces:

[T]here i s a l eg it imat e s tate int erestat sta ke in not allowi ng the reop enin g of a v irtual [P]a ndo ra's box of a ll cas es inv olv ing se ntenc es impos ed before N ov ember 1, 1989, but w hic h are present ly bei ng se rv ed by confine ment, parole or

probati on. Soci ety has a s trong i nteresti n preser v ing the final ity of cr imi nal l it ig ati on resul ti ng i n a c onv ic ti on and sent ence w hic h w ere v ali d at the t ime of thei r impos it ion
. The w hol esal e uns ettl ing of final j udg ments of conv ic ti on and sente nce which w ould occur if the 19 89 Actw ere appl ic abl e as the peti ti oner cl aims i s a pr ic e the leg is lat ure w as jus ti fied i n notpay ing w hen i t prov ide d that the A ct w oul d notappl y to prev iou sl y

se ntenc ed6 offenders. No. 02C 01- 9108- CC -0 018 s li p op. at 4 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , atJa ck son, M ay 13, 1992)
. W hil e w e do not fin d any reason to appl y

a more s tr ing ent cons ti tuti onal st andard, t his par ti cul ar st atute w oul d al so pass co nst it uti onal must er und er a strict scrutiny

test. App ly ing a stri ct scrutiny test would notauto ma tically inv ali date the l eg is lat ion
. If a co mpell ing st ate i nterestca n be show n, l eg is lat ion ca n surv iv e a strict scrutiny test e v en th ough a f und am ent al rig ht is inv olved or a "sus pectcl ass " and other persons are nottreated eq ual ly
. Doe v . N or ri s, 751 S.W .2d 8 34, 8 41 ( Tenn. 1988 ).

Altho ugh the re w ere oth er reason s, the 198 9 Act w as prima rily dev elo ped t o reli ev e pr is on ov er crow din g . By appl y ing the re forms t o c ur re nt an d future cas es, the leg is lat ure w as abl e to re duce, or at lea st bette r cont ro l, pr is on popul ati ons. Se e St ate e x rel. Ste w art, 857 S. W .2d a t 877
. The av oid ance of the time and ex pen se asso ciated w ith an y resente ncing proced ure for previ ously conv icted a nd s entenc ed pr is on i nmates i s, sta ndi ng al one, a c ompell ing reason to jus ti fy different treatment. Thus, w e find nei ther eq ual protec ti on nor

cl ass l eg is lat ion v iol ati ons under

ev en th e mostst ri ng ent t estpos si ble
. In a re lat ed arg ument, the p eti ti oner as ser ts that the p ass ag e of the 1989 A ct impl ied ly

dec lared th e pr ior

se ntenc ing rang e, ei g ht y ears t o l ife, t o be cr uel , unu sual , and di sparate. W e di sag re e. The Ei g hth A mendment prohi bit s sent ence s dispropo rtiona tely severe w hen comp ared to the crime com mitt ed. Just becau se a penal ty

i s reduce d by

new l eg is lat ion does not mean, ho w ev er , t hat t he sent ence under

the pr ior l aw w as dis propor

ti onate.7 T he p etition er has no t cited an y auth orityto supp ort his claim th at his si xty -y ear

se ntenc e i s d is propor

ti onate for th e offense of rape. I n St ate v . G ann, 733 S. W .2d 1 13 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1987) , t his co urt hel d a s entenc e of ni nety -n ine y ears for agg rav ate d rape w as no t cruel and unu sual pu nishm ent . Th e legislature mayl imi t a new

se ntenc ing enac tment to prospecti v e appl ic ati on w it hout deter mini ng thatthe old se ntenc ing st ru ctu re w as a v iol ati on of the Ei g hth Am end me nt. T hatis the v erycase he re. W e do not f ind th e prior sente nce c on s ti tu ti on al l y

i nfi r m.
IV and V The peti ti oner

al so cl aims thatthe tr ial co urt er re d w hen i t dec li ned t o appoi nt c ounse l to representthe peti ti oner for t his proceed ing and faile d to afford an e vide n ti a ry he a rin g.

T his court ha s previ ously held as follows: [There i s n o req uirement] that couns el shoul d be appoi nted in all ca ses req uest ing the w ri t of habeas corpu s before dism issal of incom pet entpetitio ns. W hile iti s t ru e tha t Tennes see Cod e Anno tated Sec ti on 40- 14- 204 allow s the ap poin tm entof coun sel "if

nece ssary " in habeas co rp us proceed ing s, there i s n o c onst it uti onal ri g ht t o c ounse l in a habea s c or pus proceed ing
. El me r L es te r F r i tt s v . St at e, N o. 0 2C 01 - 92 10 - C C - 00 24 3 s l i p op . at3 ( Ten n. C r i m. App., at Jac ks on, S ept 2 2, 19 93) (c it ati ons omit ted)
. "It is el ementar y thata ha beas cor pus peti ti on may

be d is mis sed w it hout a hear ing , and w it hout the a ppoi ntment of couns el for a hear ing , unl ess i t al leg es facts show ing the deni al of stat e or federal c o n s t it u t io n a l r ig h t s o r s o m e fa t a l j u ri s d ic t io n a l fa u lt
. " St a t e e x re l. E d m o n d s o n v. He n d e rs o n , 4 2 1 S
. W
. 2 d 6 3 5 , 6 3 6 -3 7 (T e n n . 1 9 6 7 ). Se e a ls o S t a t e e x re l. W o o d v. Johns on, 3 93 S. W .2d 1 35 ( Tenn. 1965 ); Sta te ex rel. H all v . M eadow s, 389 S. W .2d 256 ( Tenn. 1965 ); Bl and v . St ate, 451 S. W .2d 6 99 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1969) ; St ate8 ex rel. Gos s v . H eer , 413 S.W .2d 6 88 ( Tenn. 1967 ); H orace Jones v . R aney , N o. 02C 01- 9402- CC -0 0021 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , atJa ck son, Ju ne 21, 1995)
.

First, the pe titione r has no ab solute rig ht to coun sel. Nothing in this re cord demons trates thatone w as "neces sar y " w it h the meani ng of the s tatut e. Seco ndl y , t here i s n o mandat or y r ig ht t o a h ear ing and the t ri al cour t i s n ot req uired to he ar proof unles s t he pet it ion er rais es a c olo ra ble cl aim in his peti ti on. See S tate ex rel. By rd v . Bo mar, 381 S.W .2d 2 80 ( Tenn. 1964 ). Se cti on 29- 21- 109, Tenn. Code Ann. , provides as follows:

If , f rom th e sho w ing of

the pe titione r, the pla intif f w ould not b e ent it led to any

reli ef, the w ri t may

be refused, t he re asons for s uch re fusal bei ng br iefly endorsed upon t he peti ti on, o r appended thereto.
The tr ial co urt foll ow ed th e s tatut or y procedu re . Non e of the peti ti oner 's cl aims , ev en i f fact ual ly ac curate, w oul d hav e es tabl is hed t hat t he conv icti on w as v oid or

hi s s entenc e had ex pired.

VI In t he al ter nati v e, t he pet it ion er se eks so me form of eq uit abl e reli ef by having the trial court mod if y or correct his sente nce. He arg ues h e is entitled to this re li ef becaus e of the cons ti tuti onal depr iv ati ons, namel y cl ass l eg is lat ion and deni al of equal prote ction o f

the laws. See 42 U.S.C. § 1 983 . Th e trial court he ld tha t it had no jur is dicti on to modi fy the s entenc e. W e mustag re e w it h the tr ial co urt; the pet itione r is simp ly

not en titled to relief

no m atte r w hatthe pro cedu re. Th e on ly re li ef av ail abl e under

the sta te w ri t of habeas co rp us is rele ase from cu sto dy
. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 29 -2 1- 122( a)
. "No sta tutor y prov is ion i s made for p ass ing on t he v ali dity of the j udg ment ot her

than to re lea se or

deta in. U ss er

y v . Av er y , 432 S.W .2d 6 56, 6 58 ( Tenn. 1968 ). Ac cordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt c oul d notresent ence the9 defendant. N eit her

dec larator

y j udg ment nor

othe r eq uit abl e remedie s may be u sed to c hal len g e the fact o r durati on of i mpri sonment
.

In t his st ate, one w ho i s rest ra ine d of hi s l ibe rty may i nq uire i nto t he caus e of hi s i mpri sonmentthroug h the remedy of habeas co rp us. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 29- 21- 101. If hi s c onv ic ti on or se ntenc e i s v oid or

v oid abl e bec ause of an abr idg ment of any

r ig ht g uarded by

the Tenness ee C onst it uti on or the Uni ted S tates Con sti tuti on he mayse ek re li ef under the Post -C onv ic ti on Procedu re Ac t. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30 -202 . Ex ceptin limited circum stan ces un der the Uniform Admin is trati v e Procedu re Ac t and w ri t of ce rt iorar i, thes e tw o remedie s a re the ex cl usi v e means by

w hic h a p ri soner

may obta in re li ef f ro m confin ement.
I n t h e fe d e ra l c o u rt s , t h e re m e d ie s o f d e c la ra t o ry j u d gm e n t , in ju n c t ive re li ef, ci v il r ig hts remedie s, and mandamus ca nnot be us ed by a pr is oner

to chal len g e the l eng th of hi s s entenc e. See P re is er v . R odr ig uez , 411 U .S. 475 (1 9 7 3 ). Ha b e a s co rp u s is t h e o n ly fe d e ra l r e m e d y:

The broad l ang uag e of § 1983
. . . i s n ot conclu siv e of

the issue before us. T he sta tute is a g eneral one, and, despi te t he l it eral appl ic abi li ty of it s ter ms, the q uest ion remains w hether the spec ificfederal habeas co rp us sta tute, ex pli ci tl y and his tor ic all y

des ig ned to prov ide the means for a sta te pr is oner to attac k t he v ali dity of his co nfinement, mustbe u ndersto od to be t he exclusiv e rem edy av ailable in a situatio n ... where it so clearlyapp lies. Id. at 48 9.
Si mil ar ly , s tate cour ts shoul d l imi t t he procedu ra l av enues av ail abl e to c h a ll e n ge co n f in e m e n tt o t h o s e sp e c if ic a ll y d e s ig n e d t o d o so . Se e W il li a m s v. Dav is , 386 So. 2d 415, 417 (A la. 1980)
. In ou r v iew , hab eas cor pus and pet it ion s filed pursuantto the P ost -C onv icti on Procedu re Ac t hav e s uch a des ig n. As suc h,1 0 t h e y a re t h e e x c l u s i v e s t a t e re me d i e s fo r re l i e f.
Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Gar y R . W ade, Judg e CONCUR:

W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge

Je rry L. Sm it h , J u d ge