Charles D. Price v. State ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
JANUARY SESSION, 1998 June 24, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
CHARLES D. PRICE, ) Appellate Court Clerk
C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9702-CR-00042
)
Appe llant, )
)
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON . SETH N ORM AN
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appe llant. ) (Habea s Corpu s - Relief)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
THOMAS A. LONGABERGER JOHN KNOX WALKUP
300 James Robertson Parkway Attorney General and Reporter
Nashville, Tn 37201
ELLEN H. POLLACK
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, Tn 37243
VICTOR S. JOHNSON
District Attorney General
STEVE DOZIER
Assistant District Attorney
Washington Sq., Ste. 500
222-2n d Aven ue No rth
Nashville, TN 37201-1649
ORDER FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
ORDER
On November 17, 1995, Appellant, Charles D. Price, en tered a g uilty plea
to being a habitual motor vehicle offender. After the plea, but before sentencing,
Appellant broke his back. As a result of requiring medical care and physical
therap y to help him recove r from his accident, Appellant agreed to a three year
and one day sentenc e so that he co uld be sent to the Special Ne eds Facility.
Appellant began serving his sentence November 20, 1995. He was granted
parole on Febru ary 7, 1997, but was reincarcerated after a parole violation on
March 4, 1997. Appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, claiming
that the se ntenc e imp osed in his ca se wa s illegal in that he was im properly
sentenced as a Ra nge II offen der. App ellant was released from sta te custo dy in
November 30, 1997.
It is a we ll-established principle of law that the remedy of habeas corpus
is limited in scop e as w ell as relief. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 161-
162(Tenn. 1993). As the Sup reme C ourt held in Archer v. State, a proper petition
for habe as co rpus re lief ma y be bro ught a t any tim e, while the pe titioner is
incarcerated to contest a void judgment or an illegal confinement. The remedy of
a habeas writ is limited to cases where the judgment is void or the term of
imprisonment has expired. Further, "the only relief that can be given a prisoner
in a state ha beas c orpus p roceed ing is relea se." State v. Warren, 740 S.W .2d
427, 42 8 (Ten n. Crim. A pp.198 6).
-2-
As a general rule, Tennessee courts will not e ntertain a case that is moot.
A case will genera lly be considered moot if it no longer se rves as a me ans to
provide relief to the pre vailing party. See McIntyre v. Traughber, 884 S.W.2d
134, 137 (Tenn. App. 1994). The two most recognized exceptions to the
mootness rule include issues of great public interest and importance to the
administration of justice and is sues capa ble of repetition yet evading review. Id.Whether to take up cases that fit into one of the recognized exceptions to the
mootn ess do ctrine is disc retionary w ith the app ellate cou rts. Id.It is apparent that the instant case is moot since Appellant is no
longer in state custody. Moreover, from our review of the record, it does not
appear that this case falls within one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine.
IT IS, THER EFOR E, ORD ERED by the Court that the above-styled
appeal is hereby dismissed pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
Costs are taxed to the state.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
___________________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-3-