### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

ROB ERT R. MC CRAY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. C49127 P hylli s H. Miller, Judge

No. E2004-01438-CC A-R3- HC - F iled April 21, 2005
The pe titioner, Robert R. McCray , petitioned the Sullivan C o u n t y C ri m inal Court for a w rit of habeas corpus to gain relea se fr om that court’s 18-month sente nce imposed f or a c on viction of selling a counterfeit controlled substance. The court denied the petition, and the petitioner appealed. The state ha s moved this court to aff irm the order via memorandum opinion pursuant to Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. We sustain the s t ate’s motion and affirm the or der pur suant to Rule 20. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f theCo ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.
R i c h ar dT a t e , D i s tr i c t P u b l i c D e f e n d e r , B l o u n t v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , f o r th e A p p e l l a n t , R o b e rtM c C r a y. Wil liam B. Ha

rper , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee. M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION On Aug ust 14, 2002, the conviction court imposed a suspe nded one- y ear sentenc e for thepe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio n o f f a ilu reto a pp e ar anda

c on se c uti ve , susp e nd e d sen te nc e of 11 mon ths , 29 day s for his conviction of poss ession of coc aine. On A pril 20, 2004, the trial court imposed a De p ar t m en to f C o rr ec t i o n s en t en ce o f 1 8 m o n th s fo r t h e p et i t i o n er ’s co n v i ct i o n o f s e l l i n g a c ou nte rf e it c on tr oll e d s ub stanc e . Th e tria l c ou rt or de re d th e se nte nc e to b e se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly to the other two se ntence s.

I n his May

10, 2004 petition for h a b e as c or pu s rel ie f, thepe tition e r c laime d th a t, based upon the order s of probation in the two prior case s and a rele ase elig ibilit y of 30 perc ent in the third case , his sentence s had expired, entitling him to relief

.-2- Following a hea

ring , the habeas corpus court determined that the 18- month sentence had not expired and that the matter of sentenc ing c redits should be addr essed via theAdministrative Procedur es Ac t. The court entere d an orde r on June 24, 2004, dism issing the pe tition.

To be sure , h a b e a s c o r

p us relief is available w hen a pe titioner’s sentenc e or othe r restraint has expi red. Sta te v . R itc hie , 2 0 S

. W

. 3 d6 2 4 , 6 3 0 ( T e n n . 2 0 0 0 )

. R e l e a s e e l i g i b i l i t y, howeve r, is disre g arde d in determining sentenc e expiration for habeas corpus purposes. See, e .g., Lawre nc e Al le n H

od ge v . Mill s , No. W 2004-01107-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., J ackson, D ec. 13, 2004).
For purposes of our revie w of the ha be as c or pu s court’s actions, it appear s from the rec ord that the consec utive sentenc es imposed on Aug ust 14, 2002, wer e due to e x pire on or a bout Aug ust 13, 2004. The 18-month sentenc e in the third ca se extended the e x pirati o n d at e for the ag g reg ate se ntence s to Fe bruary 13, 2006. Thus, the third sentenc e had not e x pired e x pired a s of the date of the court’s order

nor, for that matter, a s of the cur

rent date. The orde r is aff

irmed.

___________________________ _ ___________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE