DocketNumber: 02C01-9903-CC-00084
Filed Date: 10/19/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014
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