1 Rule 10 of the Rules o f the Court of Appeals o f Tennessee states:
This Court, with the c oncurren ce of all judge s participating in the case, may affirm, reverse o r modify the actions

of the t

rial cou rt by memora

ndum opinion

when a for

mal opini

on would h ave no precedential

value. When a case is decided by Memorandum opinion it s hall be design

ated “MEMORANDUM OPINIO N”, shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in an y unrelated ca se. 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON July 14, 2000 Sess

ion VICTOR T. WILLIAMS v. PERCEY PITZER, ET AL 

### . An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County No. 9202 Jon Kerry Blackwood, Judge

No. W2000-00028-COA-R3-CV - Filed June 1, 2001

This is a habeas case. A Wisconsin inmate housed in a Tennessee prison filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner was incarcerated in Tennessee pursuant to a contract between the Wisconsin correctional department and a private corporation. In his petition, the prisoner alleged that the Wisconsin correctional department did not have the authority to transfe r him ac ross state lines, and thus, his incarceration in Tennessee was illegal. The trial court dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff prisone r appealed. We a

ffirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
H OLLY K IRBY LILLARD , J., delivered the op inion of the court,

in which W. F RANK C RAWFORD , P.J., W.S., and A LAN E. H IGHERS , J., joined. Victor T. Williams, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se. Tom Anderson, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Percey Pitzer. MEMORANDUM OP

INION 1
In this case, Victor

T. Williams was convi

cted of sexual assa

ult and burglary

in Wisconsin in 1984, and was sentenced to serve time in a Wisconsin prison. In 1998, Williams was transferred to the Whiteville Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee, pursuant to a contract between the Wisconsin

Department of Cor

rections (“WDOC”

) and Correctio

n s Corporation of America (“CCA”). On Nove

mber 16, 1999, Willia

ms filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus declaring-2-

that he was unlawfully

imprisoned in Tenne

ssee because th

e WDOC lacked statu

tory auth orit y to transport him across state li

nes. Addit

ionally, Wil

liams asserted tha

t his transfer to Whi

teville resultedin his becoming ineligible for parole or work release. Williams also contended that he was confinedunder minimum security conditions in Wisconsin, but since his transfer to Tennessee, he has been confined

under maximum security conditions. Williams named “Percey Pitzer al. etc.” as defe nda nts in t his act ion . Pe rcey P itz er i s th e war den of t he W hit evi lle faci lit y. On November 30, 1999, the trial court entered an order summar ily dismissing Williams’s petition for failure to sta

te a claim upon whic

h relief can be g

ranted. From this

order, Williams appeals. On appeal, Williams argues that the trial court abused its discretion in fa

iling to grant hi

m an evidentiary hearing and erred a s a matter of law by dismissing his petition.
A petition for a writ of

habeas corpus is a complaint seeking relief from an illegal restraint or confinement. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21- 101 (2000); Passarella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 62 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). In Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993), the Tennessee Supreme Court stated: Habeas corpus relief

is available in Tennessee only when “it appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of the procee ding s upon which the judg ment is rendered” that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant,

or that a defenda

nt’s s ent ence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired. Archer , 851 S.W.2d at 164. If, upon theface of the petition, it is clear that the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief, the trial court may summarily dismiss the petition. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109; Passarella , 891 S.W.2d at 627. An evidentiary hearing is not required if the petition clearly fails to establish the necessary facts. See Luster

v. Bargery , No. W2000-00022-COA-R3- CV, 2000 WL 1880274, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2000). At the outset, it is clear that Williams’s petition must fail because he does not allege that the convicting court was without jurisdictionor authority to sentence him, and he does not allege that his sentence has expired. Williams’s petition alleges that the WDOC did not have sta tutory autho

rity to transport him acr

oss state lines, and thus his in

carceration in

a Tennessee fa

cility is unlawful. On i ts face, Williams’s petition does not fit within the “limited” scope of the habeas corpus r emedy

. See Passarella , 891 S.W.2d at 626. Moreover, Williams relies heavily on a ruling by

a Wisconsin trial jud

ge that, although the WDOC had the statutory authority un

der Wisconsin law to

enter into contra

cts wit h p rivate and publicentities for the detainment of inmates in other states, it did not have the statutory authority to transfer those inmates across state lines. See Evers v. Sullivan , No. 98-CV-2282 ( Wisconsin Circuit CourtOrder dated Oct. 14, 19 99). However, this holding was overruled on appeal. See Evers v. Sullivan , 615 N.W.2d 680, 686 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).-3-

Because it is clear on the face of Williams’s pe tition that he has faile d to allege fac

ts warrantinga habeas corpus remedy, the trial court did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition without gra nting Wil liams an ev identiary hear ing. The decision of the tr

ial court is affir

med. Costs are taxed

to the appellant, Victor T. Wil lia ms, and his sur ety, for whi ch ex ecut ion may i ssu e ifnece ssa ry.

___________________________________ HOLLY KIRBY L

ILLARD, JUDGE