Ashad Rashad Abdulah Ali Muhammad v. State ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
ASHAD RASHAD ABDULLAH ALI )
December 18, 1997
MUHAMMAD, )
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9707-CC-00300
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellant, ) (No. S9700035 Below)
Appellate Court Clerk
) LINCOLN COUNTY
VS. )
) The Hon. William Charles Lee
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
Appellee. ) (Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas
) Corpus)
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.
In this appeal from the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, the
appellant raises three issues: 1) whether the trial judge should have recused himself in this
matter, 2) whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, and 3) whether the 1985
indictments under which the appellant was convicted were fatally defective because they
did not specify the mens reas for the offenses.
We agree with the state that the appellant should have filed his habeas
corpus petition in Davidson County, rather than Lincoln County, because he was
incarcerated at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Davidson County, Tennessee
at the time he filed his petition. Under T.C.A. § 29-21-105, petitions for habeas corpus
relief should be made to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the
application, unless a sufficient reason be given in the petition for not applying to such court
or judge. Here, the appellant contends that his petition was properly filed in Lincoln County
because the original indictments and record were in the Lincoln County trial court’s
possession. This is not a sufficient reason to give the Lincoln County trial court jurisdiction
over the appellant’s petition.
Moreover, had the trial court attempted to convert the petition for writ of
habeas corpus to a petition for post-conviction relief, as authorized by statute, the claim
would have been dismissed as time barred. See T.C.A. § 40-30-202; Archer v. State, 851
S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993). According to the appellant’s pleadings, he was convicted in
1985 of burglary, armed robbery, and aggravated rape. There is no record that an appeal
was taken after the appellant was convicted. Accordingly, even if the trial court had
considered the appellant’s petition as a petition for post-conviction relief, the appellant
would have been barred by the one-year statute of limitation.
Without addressing the appellant’s other issues, we find that the judgment
of the trial court should be affirmed because the petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed
in the wrong court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the
judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules, is
granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are taxed to the appellant.
ENTER, this the ____ day of December, 1997.
_____________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
_____________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
-2-