Fred Bowen v. Billy Compton ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT JACKSON
    FRED J. BOWEN,                               )
    )
    Petitioner,                         ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9701-CC-00016
    )
    vs.                                          ) LAKE COUNTY
    )
    BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN,                       ) No. 96-7506
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    FILED
    April 17, 1997
    ORDER                   Cecil Crowson, Jr.
    Appellate C ourt Clerk
    This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to dismiss the
    above-captioned appeal. The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
    trial court claiming that his sentence has expired due to the miscalculation of certain
    sentencing credits. The petitioner was originally convicted of first degree murder and
    sentenced to death in 1970, but his sentence was subsequently commuted to ninety-
    nine years. The trial court denied the petition. The petitioner timely filed notice of
    appeal, and both the record and petitioner’s brief have already been filed with this
    Court.
    In its motion, the state argues that the trial court properly denied relief in
    this case because it does not appear from the face of the judgment or record that the
    petitioner’s sentence has expired. See Archer v. State, 
    851 S.W.2d 157
    , 164 (Tenn.
    1993). The state further contends that the issue raised by the petitioner is not a proper
    consideration for habeas corpus relief, but rather must be challenged under the Uniform
    Administrative Procedures Act. We agree. See Brigham v. Lack, 
    755 S.W.2d 469
    , 471
    (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1988); State v. Warren, 
    740 S.W.2d 427
    , 428 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1987).
    Accordingly, finding no error of law mandating reversal, it is hereby
    ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20,
    Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. It is FURTHER ORDERED that counsel’s
    motion to withdraw from further representation of the petitioner is denied. This order,
    however, does not preclude counsel from filing a motion pursuant to Rule 14, Rules of
    the Supreme Court.
    Enter, this the ___ day of April, 1997.
    _____________________________
    PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
    _____________________________
    JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
    _____________________________
    DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02C01-9701-CC-00016

Filed Date: 4/17/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014