Don Hancock v. State ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
DON L. HANCOCK,
AT NASHVILLE
)
FILED
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9710-CR-00489
July 30, 1998
Appellant, )
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
Cecil W. Crowson
VS. ) (No. 2554 Below)
Appellate Court Clerk
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) The Hon. Thomas H. Shriver
)
Appellee. ) (Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the
judgment in the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals Rules. Finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the
appellant’s claim, we affirm the denial of the appellant’s petition for habeas corpus relief.
In this appeal, the appellant contends that his sentence is expired based on
sentence credits to which he claims he is entitled but was not given. In denying relief, the
trial court found that it was without jurisdiction to review the calculation of sentence
reduction credits.
A habeas corpus petition must contain allegations suggesting either that the
petitioner's convictions are void or that his sentence has expired. Otherwise the petition
is facially invalid and subject to summary dismissal. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157(Tenn.1993). Habeas corpus relief is not available to challenge Department of Correction
matters that have no bearing on the validity of the restraining conviction, the resulting
sentence, or the expiration of the sentence. See, e.g., State v. Warren, 740 S.W.2d 425,
428 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). Thus, complaints regarding sentence credit miscalculations
that relate to release eligibility short of full service of the sentence do not warrant habeas
corpus relief.
In the present case, the appellant’s contention deals with inactions by the
Department of Correction relative to properly crediting him with sentence reduction credits.
As the trial court concluded, the appellant’s claim does not state a ground for habeas
corpus relief.
Accordingly, based on our review of the appellant’s brief, the state’s motion,
and the record in this case, we conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance
under Rule 20.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. The appellant
being indigent, costs are taxed to the state.
_____________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
_____________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
- 2 -