### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma rc h 6, 200 7

RA ND ALL CA RV ER v. TO NY PA RKE R, WAR DEN

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 04-CR -8665 R. Lee M oore, Jr ., Judge

No.W2006-01010-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Septem ber 7, 2007

Petitioner, Randall Carver , filed a pr o s e petition f or writ of err or cor am nobis and/or habe as cor pus relief . The trial c ourt treated the petition as one f or post-convic tion and su m m arily dismiss ed the petition. On appea l, this Court a ffirme d the post-conviction court’s dismiss al of the pe tition. See Ra nd all Carv e r v . S

tat e , No. M2002-02891-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 WL21145572 (Tenn. Crim. App.,

a t N a sh vil le , M ay

16 , 2 00 3) . Pe tit ion e r su bs equ ent ly fi le d a pe tit ion fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s, al l egi n g n u m er o u s cl ai m s fo r r el i ef

. T h e t ri al co u rt d en i edt h e p et i t i o nwi t h o u ta h ea ri n g, deter mining that bec ause Petitioner failed to pr oduce materia l to the court for consideration and that beca use Petitioner was be ing he ld by the State of Ke ntucky

on Kentucky

char g es all of Petitioner’s issues were moot. Petit ioner a ppeale d. On appe al, this C o u rt , without reac hing the merits of Petitioner’s argument, rema nded the case for de termination of “w hy the counse l who repr esente d the petitioner in the lower

court is not repr esenting the petitioner on a ppeal.” See Ra n d

a l l Carver v

. Tony Parker, W

arden , No. W2005-00522-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 140408, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App.,

a t Jac ks on , Jan . 1 8, 20 06 ). On re mand
, the tr ia l c ou rt le arn e d that Pe tit ion e r h a d b e e n g ra nte d p a ro le on his underlying se ntence s in the State of Tenne ssee, wa ived extradition and was tra nsfer red to the custody of the State of K entucky . Subsequently , the trial court e ntere d an orde r deny ing the petition fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s. Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a tim e ly no tic e of a

pp e a l. He argue s that he is e nti tle d to reque st habea s corpus re lief while be ing inc arc erated in K entucky and that this Court should transfer the petition to the court in which he was originally convicted. B eca use an out-of

-state r esident may seek ha beas c orpus re lief in Tenne s s ee from a Tennesse e convic tion, see State v. Church , 987 S.W .2d 855, 857-58 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), and the supreme court re cently deter mined in Joseph Fa ulk ne r a /k /a J e rry Fa ulk ne r v . S tat e , ___ S.W .3d ___, 2007 WL 1226831, at *6 (Te nn. Apr. 27, 2007), that a “ prisoner se rving concur rent state a

nd fede ral sente n ce s in a fe dera l corre ctional instit ution may challeng e his state convictions through the use of the state w rit of habe as cor pus,” we de termine that the tria l court did not lose jurisdiction to make a dete rmination on the merits of Petitioner’s claim by virtue of Petitioner’s parole from his Te nnessee convictions and inca rce ration in Kentucky . There fore , we r ever se and r emand the judg ment of the trial court for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s R e ve r se d and Re m ande d.-2-

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the o p i n i o n o f t h e cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES , and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

J ames E. L anier
, District Public Defe nder a nd Patrick McGill, Assistant District Publi c De fende r, for the a ppellant, Randall Carve r

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Sop hia S. L e e , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; and Phillip Bivens, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Factual Back

ground

Th is c a se ha s a

rathe r l on g and

c on vo lut e d p ro c e dura l hi sto ry . Pe tit io ner w a s o ri g ina lly indicted for attempted first deg ree murder a nd espec ially ag g ravated ki dnapping

. At a plea hear ing

on F e br ua ry 9, 20 02 , Pe tit ion e r a g re e d to a me nd the ind ic tme nts and

ple d g uil ty to a g g ra

vate d a ssa ult

and a tte mpt e d e sp e c ia lly

a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ing . A s a

re su lt, he wa s se nte nc e d, res pe c tiv e ly , to

concur rent six- a nd eig ht-y ear

sentenc es that we re or dere d to be serve d consec utively to Petiti oner’ s prior unserve d sentenc es from Kentucky . On Octobe r 22, 2002, he f iled a pr o s e “ Pe tit ion

fo r Wr it of Err or Coram Nobis and/or Writ of Habe as Corpus,” seeking relief beca use of ne wly -discover ed evidenc e and be cause he pled g uilty to ag g ravated assault which he argued wa s not a lesser- included offe nse of attempt to commit first deg ree murder, f or which he was indicted. The trial court tre ated the petition as a pe tition for post-conviction relief and dismissed the petition withou t appointing counsel a nd without conducting an evide ntiary hear ing. Petitioner appea led. On appe al, this Court deter mined that Petitioner did not set out viable claims for coram nobis and/or ha beas c orpus re lief. Se e Ra nd all Carv e r v . S

tat e , No. M2002-02891-CC A-R3-CO, 2003 WL21145572, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 16, 2003). Specific ally , this Court determined that Petitioner ag ree d to an amendme nt of the indictment prior to his g uilty plea a nd that the newly

discovere d evidenc e would not have chang ed the outcome of the proc eeding s. Additionally , this Court concluded that the t rial court did not abuse its discretion by ref using to appoint counsel for Petitioner or dismissi ng the petition without an evidentiary hear ing. Id. at *2-*3.

Sub se qu e ntl y , o n D e c e mbe r 8 , 2 00 4, Pe tit ion e r f ile d a pe tit ion fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s in the Cir c uit

Court of L a ke County , a lle g ingthat: ( 1) the tr ial court did no t ha ve the a uth or ity to

se nte nc e him

a s a Rang e I of

fe nd e r fo r c on vic tio ns fo r a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult and a tte mpt e d e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated kidnapping ; (2) the trial court did not have the authority to amend the indictments; (3) the re is n o s uc h c ri me a s atte mpt to c omm it e sp e c ia lly

a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ing ; (4) th e de c isi on

in Blakely v. W ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), re nders his sentence void; and ( 5) Petitioner’s sente nce has expired due to the administration of pretria l jail credits. On De cembe r 10, 2004, Petitioner filed

an ame ndme nt to his pe tit ion ra isi ng tw o ad dit ion a l issu e s, inc lud ing : (1) wh e the r S umn e r C ountyT h e re is no re c o rd o f t h is he a rin g in the re c o rd b e fo re this C o u rt. 1

-3- Criminal Court had jurisdiction to enter conc urre nt sentence s while Petitioner was on pa role at the time th e ju d g me n ts w e r e e n te r e d ; an d ( 2 ) w h e th e r th e ju d g me n ts ar e v o id b e c a u s e th e trial c ourt failed to date them. Finally
, on Dec ember 16, 2004, Petitioner filed a third pe tition for writ of habe as corpus, a lleg ing a dditional gr ounds for re lief.

On Dec ember

27, 2004, the trial cour

t issued an orde r deny ing relief on severa l of the issues raised by the petitioner. Spec ifically
, the t rial cour t determined that the judgme nt clear ly showed that

“ the a tte mpt e d f

ir st d e g re e mur de r c ha

rg e wa s ame nd e d to a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult at whi ch ti me [P etitioner] entere d a plea

of guilty and agr eed to serve a si x -y ear sentenc e.” L ikewise, the tria l court fo un d th a t Pe tit io ner agreed to an ame ndme nt o f t he ind ic tme nt o n th e c ha rg e of e sp e c ia lly ag g rav ated kidnapping to attempted e specia lly ag g ravated kidnapping . Howeve r, the c ourt stated that there was insuffic ient information in the re cord to allow the court to rule on the rema ining issues raised by Petitioner. The cour

t ga ve Petitioner until J anuar y 30, 2005, to produce additional information, including “plea forms . . . [that] wer e sig ned and a pproved by

[P ]etit ioner.” I n the

or de r, the c ourt

a lso no te d th e iss ue s Pe tit ion e r r a ise d in his De c e mbe r 1 0, 20 04 , ame ndme nt t o h is petition. The court noted that the public defe nder’ s office was a ppointed to look into t hese two issues.

On Fe bruar

y 7, 2005, the cour

t filed an orde r statin g t h at P etitioner fa iled to provide the information as reque sted by the court and denied the petition on all g rounds except for the issues f or which the public de fende r wa s appointed. The co u rt schedule d a hea ring on the re maining issues on Fe bruar

y 22, 2005. 1

On Feb ru ar y 2 8 , 2 005, the cour t denied the pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus. The Court stated:

On Dec ember

27, 2004, . . . [t ]he Court ruled on cer tain issues raised in the pe tition

a t th a t t i m e w i t h o u t a h e ar i n g

. T h e c o urt a l l o w e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r a d d i t i o n a l tim e to produce other mate rial to the Court for the Court’s considerat i o n

. T h ere afte r the Public Defe nder . . . w as appointed to look into limi ted i ssues in this case

. . . . I t was

an n o unced in ope n court on F ebrua ry 22, 2005, that the petitioner wa s now being held by the S tate of Kentucky on Kentucky

char g es. Ther e does not a ppear to be any basis for g ranting his Petit ion for Writ of Habe as Corpus. Als o the issues are now moot since he is no long er in c ustody in the State of Tenne ssee.

Petitioner appea led from the t rial court’s dismiss al of the pe tition, pr o s e , contendingthat “he

was on parole at the time said judg ments was [sic] enter ed fr om the State of Ke ntucky ; thus creating a ‘ma ndatory ’ requirement of imposing consecutive sentences.” Additionally , Petitioner argued that the trial cour

t violate d his due proce ss by failing to appoint counsel for the entire petition, “instead

a pp oin tin g c ouns e l to pa

rt s th e re to. ” F ina lly , Pe tit ion e r c on te nd e d th a t th e c ourt imp ro pe rl yT h e re is no re c o rd o f t h is he a rin g in the re c o rd b e fo re this C o u rt o n a p p e a l. 2

-4- dismiss ed the pe tition as moot beca use he was “cle arly on parole from the State of Tenne ssee a nd there to stil l in the State’s custody .”

On appe al, this Court did not rea ch the mer its of Petitioner’s arguments beca use i t was not clea r fr om the rec ord wh en, if e ver, the public defe nder’ s office withdrew f rom repr esentation of Petitioner and why

Petiti o n er procee ded pr o s e on appea l. Se e Ra nd all Carv e r v . To ny

Pa rk e r, W arden , No. W2005-00522-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 140408, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, J an. 18, 2006). Instead, this Court remande d the case for a determination of “why the counse l who repr esent ed the petitioner in the lowe r cour t is not represe nting the pe titioner on appea l.” Id. Additionally , this Court not ed that t h e trial court “urg ed both the petitioner a nd the State to brief thoroug hly

the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to habea s corpus re lief while be ing in the custody of the state of

Kentucky” and that both pa rties had failed to c omply

with that instruction on appea l. Id.

On remand, the t rial court issued an orde r on January 26, 2006, notify ing Petitioner a nd the public defe nder that a hea ri n g would be held on F ebrua ry 28, 2006, “in orde r to comply with the order of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.” 2

On April 25, 2006, the trial court enter ed an or der in whic h it stated that the public defe nder

a pp e are d in c ourt and pr e se nte d pr oo f that Pe tit ion e r wa s g ra nte d pa ro le on Janu ary 15 , 2 00 5 f

or his T e n n e s s e e c o n v i c t i o n s an d t r an s f e r r e d t o t h e D e p art m e n to f

C o r r e c t i o n s f o r t h e S t a t e o f

K e n tu c ky. As a r e s u l t , t h e t r i a l c o u rtd e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o nf

o r w r i to f h a b e a s c o r p u s

. P e t i t i o n e r

f i l e d a t i m e ly notice of a

ppeal. On a

ppeal f rom the denial of t he habeas corpus petition, Petitioner argues that he “has a rig ht to request habe as cor pus relief while incar cer ated in anothe r state.”

An aly sis
Petitioner argues on appe al that he is entit led t o be hea rd on a pe tition for habea s corpus re lief even thoug h he is prese ntly incar cer ated in another State. Specific ally , Petitioner contends that whe n an out-of- state re sident seeks ha beas c orpus re lief fr om a Tenne ssee conviction as a void re straint on his liberty , a cour

t of the county of t he original c onviction has jurisdiction to rule on the petition. T h u s , P e t i t i o n e r

u r g e s t h i s C o u rt t o “ r e m an d [ P e t i t i o n e r ’ s ] c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u rtf o r S u m n e r C o u n t y, the c ourt of the or ig ina l c on vic tio n, fo r a dju dic a tio n a s to the qu e sti on of wh e the r the pe tit ion e r i s
e nti tled to h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f. ” Th e State c ounte rs that Pe tit ion e r h a s n ot p ro ve n th a t he is “re strained of

his liberty ” and that he has fa iled to present a cog nizable claim for relief in a habe as
co rp u s p ro ce ed i n g.
The g rounds upon which a writ of habeas corpus may be is sued are ver y narr ow. Su mm e rs

v . S tat e , 2 1 2 S

. W

. 3 d

2 5 1 , 2 5 5 (T en n

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Hi c k ma n v . S tat e , 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004)). A w rit of habe as cor pus is available only

when it appe ars on the face of the judg ment or the

rec ord that the c onvicting c ourt was without jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the de fenda nt or that-5-

the defe ndant is stil l imprisoned despite the expiration of his sentence

. Ar c he r v . S tat e , 851 S.W .2d 15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v . S tat e , 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992)

.
The for mal require ments for a

n application or pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus are found

a t T .C. A. § 2 9- 21 -1 07 :
(a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, sig ned by either the party for whose be nefit it is intended, or some pe rson on the petitioner’ s behalf, a nd verifie d by aff idavit. (b ) T he pe tit ion

sh a ll s ta te : (1) That the person in whose behalf the writ is soug ht, is il leg ally re s t raine d of liberty , and the pe rson by

whom and plac e whe re r estraine d, mentioning the na me of such per son, if kn o wn , and if unknown, de scribing the per son with as much pa rt ic ula ri ty a s p ra c tic a

ble ; (2) The cause or pre tense of suc h restra int accor ding to t h e best information of the applicant, a

nd if it be by virtue of any leg al proce ss, a copy there of shall be anne x ed,

or a satis fa c tor

y re a so n g ive n f

or its a bs e nc e ; (3) That the leg ality

of the re straint h as not alre ady been a djudge d upon a prior proce eding of the same c hara cter , to the best of the a pplicant’s knowledg e and be lief; and (4) That it is the first application for the writ, or, if a previous applica

tion has been made, a copy of the petition a

nd proce eding s there sha ll be produce d, or satisfac tory

rea sons should be g iven for the failure to do so.

T.C.A. § 29-21-107.

A h a be a s p e t i t i o n e r c an o n l y a t t a c k a j u d g m e n t t h a t i s v o i d o n i t s f a c e an d n o t o n e t ha t is

mere ly voidable. Sta te v . R itc hie , 2 0 S. W.3 d 6 24 , 6 30 (T e nn . 2 000). “ A v oid jud g me nt i s o ne in which the judgme nt is fac ially invalid beca use t he court lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judgme nt or bec aus e t h e def endant’ s sentence has expired.” Tay lor v . S tat e , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. A petitioner has the burde n of establishing by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that the judg ment he attacks is void or t hat hi s term of imprisonment has expired. State ex re l. Kuntz v. Bomar , 381 S.W .2d 290, 291 (Tenn. 1964). I f a pe titioner fails to establish by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that his conviction is void or his term of imprisonment has e x pired, he is not entitl ed to immediate rele ase. Pa ssa rella v . S tat e , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627-28 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1994), superce ded by statute as stated in State v. Stev en S. Newman , N o

. 0 2 C0 1

- 9 7 0 7

- CC

- 0 0 2 6 6 , 1 9 9 8 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998).

Pe tit ion e r c or

re c tly no te s th a t an o ut- of

-s ta te re sid e nt m ay

se e k h a be a s c or pu s r e li e f i n Tenne ssee from a Te nnessee conviction. See State v. Church , 9 87 S.W. 2d 85 5, 85 7- 58 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 1998). More over, be cause parole imposes significa nt conditions and restra ints on free dom, a Tenne ssee pa

rolee may

t es t t h e v alidity

of his underly

ing c onvictions through a writ of habe as corpus. Hi c k

ma n v . S tat e , 153 S.W .3d 15, 2 3 (T en n

. 2004). In these situations, the most fitti ng-6-

forum to file such a petiti on would ordinarily be the county of convic tion. Church a t 85 7. I n th is

c a se , Pe tit ion e r firs t fi led his pe tit ion in t he L a ke Cou

nty Cir c uit Cou rt wh ile he wa s st ill inc arc e rate d in

L a ke County

fo r T e nn e sse e c on vic tio ns . D ur ingthe pe nd e nc y of hi s a pp e a ls, Petitioner was par oled from Te nnessee and tra nsfer red to the State of

Kentucky

to serve a sentenc e there . The trial c ourt dismissed the petition determining, inte r a lia
, that it was filed in the improper venue. O n appea l, Petiti oner a sks this Court to transfe r hi s habea s corpus pe tition t o the county of conviction, Sumner County

. T.C.A. § 29-21-105 mandates venue for ha beas c orpus ac tions: “The application should be made to the c ourt or judg e most convenie nt in point of distance to the applicant, unless a suff icient

rea son be g iven in the petition for not applying to s u ch court or judg e.” A t the time Petiti oner ini tia lly fi le d h is p e tit ion, it w a s f ile d in the pr op e r c ourt

un de r T .C. A. § 2 9- 21 -1 05 be c a us e P e t i t i o n e r w a s , a tt h a tt i m e , i n c ar c e r a t e d i n L a k e C o u n t y an d

t h e p e t i t i o nw a s f

i l e d i nL a k e C o u n t y. Id. We be lieve that when a habea s corpus petition is orig inally filed in the prope r venue that court does not lose jurisdiction to determining the m erits of the pe tition s imply beca use the De partment of Corre ction transfe rs t h e petitioner to a nother c ounty

or state. I t is common knowledg e that inm a te s are ro uti ne ly tr ans fe rr e d amo ng our vari ou s pri so ns , as we ll as of te n sen t to oth e r s ta te s to de a l w ithc ha

rg e s o r c on vic tio ns re c e ive d ou tsi de Te nn e sse e

. I n su c h sit uatio ns jud ic ia l e c on omy is b e tte r s e rv e d b y

a llo wi ngthe c ourt

in w hic h th e hab eas pet it ion wa s in iti a lly

pr op e rl y fi le d to de te rm ine the me ri ts o f t

he pe tit ion

wi tho ut t he ne c e ssi ty

of re pe a te d f

ili ng s.

Moreove r, our supre me cour t rec ently deter mined in Joseph Faulk

ner a/k/a Je rry Faulkne r

v . S tat e , ___ S.W .3d ___, 2007 WL 1226831, at *6 (Te nn. Apr. 27, 200 7), that a “pr isoner ser ving

c on c ur re nt st ate and

fe de ra l se nte nc e s in

a fe de ra l c or

re c tio na l in sti tut ion

may c ha lle ng e his state convictions throug h the use of the state writ of habeas corpus.” I n Joseph Faulk ner , the petitioner

wa s o rd e re d to se rv e his state se nte nc e s in fe de ra l c us tod y c on c ur re ntl y wi th h is f

e de ra l se nte nc e s. The pe titioner sought ha

beas c orpus re lief on his state convictions while still incar cer ated in fede ral pr iso n a rguin g that be c a

us e he wa s o n p aro le wh e n h e c omm itt e d h is o ff e ns e s, the g ov e rn ingstatut e requ ir e d c o n s e c u ti v e r a th e r th an c o n c u r r e n t s e n te n c e s an d
, th e r e f o r e , th e s e n te n c e im

p osed wa s contra ry to law. The tria l court dismissed the petition, determining that it did not have jurisdiction to h e ar t he c la im. Th e su

pr e me c ourt

de te rm ine d that T. C. A. § 29- 21 -1 02 do e s n ot p ro hib it a petitioner who is s erving a st ate sentence in fede ral c ustody from pursuing the state wr it of habea s
c or pu s si nc e the pe tit ion e r, wh ile be ingde ta ine d in a fe de ra l pr iso n, is also de ta ine d b y pr oc e ss issued by Tenne ssee. Faulkner
, ___ S.W .3d at ___, 2007 WL 1226831, at *6. The Court took pains to p oin t out that the pe tit ion e r c ou ld no t c ha lle ng e e ith e r the va lid ity of his fe de ra l c on vic tio ns or his imprisonment on those crimes t hroug h the s tate writ of habeas cor pus. Howeve r, the supre me cour t noted that the fa ct that t he petiti oner was not entitled to rele ase from custody even if his petition was

succe ssful was not re levant to the ana ly sis of the issue. Takingall that into consideration, the cour t ult imate ly

de te rm ine d th a t th e pe tit io ner c ou ld u se the wr it t o in qu ir e int o h is s ta te c on vic tio ns , reg ardle ss of the plac e of his inca rce ration. Id. at *4.

The same analy sis is applicable to the case here in. Petitioner is on parole for his Tennessee

c on vic tio ns , b ut i s in c arc e rate d in Ke ntu c ky . H e is t

he re fo re , in

a dd iti on to bei ng impr iso ne d in-7-

Kentucky , “re strained of his liber ty ” by virtue of his Te nnessee parole status. He is not attempting t o fi l e th e wr i t i n T en n es s ee t o ch al l en ge hi s Ke n tu ck y co n v i ct i o n s

. He i n i t i at edt h e w ri tt o ch al l en ge his Te n n e s s e e c o n v ic ti o n s w h il e h e w a s in c ar c e r a te d in T e n n e s s e e f o r th o s e c o n v ic ti o n s , in

other words, while he was imprisoned in Tenne ssee. At that time, the L ake County Circuit Court was the pr op er ven ue to de te rm ine the me ri ts o f P e tit ion e r’ s c la ims . T hat c ourt did no t su bs e qu e ntl y

los e jurisdiction over Petitioner’s cla ims solely due to Petitioner’s par ole and tra nsfe r o ut- o f

- s ta te to serve his Ke ntu c ky

se nte nc e s. Con se qu e ntl y , w e re ve rs e the tr ia l c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of the pe tit ion fo r w ri t of habe as cor

pus and re mand the matter to the trial court f

or a d et er m i n at i o n on the merits of the pe tit ion . O n r e mand , th e tr ia l c ourt ne e d n ot r e vis it tho se iss ue s th a t w e re dis mis se d in iti a lly as a result of inadequate doc umentation. See Joseph Faulk er , ___ S.W .3d at ___, 2007 WL 1226831,

a t *6 ; Su mm e rs , 2 12 S.W. 3d a t 25 9. As su min g a

de nia l of hab eas corpu s r e lie f o n r e mand , w ith respe ct to the issues dismiss ed for mootness or improper ve nue, Petitioner should prese nt his iss ues succinc tl y in o n e a

p p e a l to th is Co u rt w it

h th e Pu b li c D e f e n d e r a c ti n g a s c o u n s e l. A s s u mi n g that appea l takes plac e, counse l for Petitioner should be ce rtain to addres s al l issues as may be appropr iate and r aised by the orig inal habea s corpus pe tition as seen fit by counsel in consultation with the Petitioner.

CONCL USI ON

I n light of the fore g oing the judgme nt of the trial court is r ever sed and the case rema nded for proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE