State v. Jerrell Livingston ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JUNE 1999 SESSION
JERRELL LIVINGSTON, * C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9903-CC-00084
APPELLANT, * LAUDERDALE COUNTY
VS. * Hon. Joseph H. W alker, Judge
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * (Habeas Corpus)
APPELLEE. * FILED
October 19, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
For Appellant: For Appellee:
Jerrell Livingston, Pro Se Paul G. Summers
West Tennessee Security Facility Attorney General and Reporter
Site #2, P.O. Box 1050 425 Fifth Avenue North
Henning, TN 38041 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Marvin E. Clements, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
OPINION FILED: ____________________
AFFIRMED RULE 20
NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE
OPINION
The petitioner, Jerrell Livingston, appeals as of right from the dismissal
of his petition for habeas corpus relief by the Lauderdale County Circuit Court on the
basis that habeas corpus is not the proper proceeding to address the petitioner’s
complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to the Court of
Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
In his pro se petition, the petitioner alleges that he is being illegally
restrained due to the failure of the Department of Corrections to properly calculate
the amount of time he has served and to properly calculate the good time credits
which he has earned. He asserts that as a result of good time credits and
“probation street time,” he was eligible for release more than one year prior to the
filing of the instant petition.
It is a well established principle of law that the remedy of habeas
corpus is limited in its nature and scope. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn.
1993). In Tennessee, habeas corpus relief is available only if it appears on the face
of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which the judgment is
rendered that the convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a
defendant, or that the defendant’s sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has
expired. Id. The petitioner has the burden of proving an illegal confinement.
Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
Initially, we note that the petitioner has failed to attach a copy of the
judgment of his conviction or any record of the proceedings on which the judgment
is based. A trial court may dismiss a petition for failure to comply with this
requirement. State ex rel. Wood v. Johnson, 393 S.W.2d 135, 136 (Tenn. 1965).
2
Furthermore, the petitioner’s complaints deal with inactions and
failures by the Department of Corrections relative to calculations of good time credits
and “probation street time.” As the trial court correctly determined, the petitioner’s
claims on these issues are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Calculations of time credits and matters relating to sentence reduction credits are
internal matters of the Department of Corrections which must be addressed through
the procedures set forth in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Tenn Code
Ann. § 4-5-101 to 4-5-324; State v. Raney, 868 S.W.2d 721, 723 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1993); State v. Kuntz, No. 01C01-9109-CR-00019, 1991 WL 101857, at *3 (Tenn.
Crim. App. at Nashville, June 14, 1991).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Norma McGee Ogle, Judge
CONCUR:
David H. Welles, Judge
Thomas T. W oodall, Judge
3