Misty Laverne Roberts v. State

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
FILED
April 30, 1999
JANUARY 1999 SESSION
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
MISTY LAVERNE ROBERTS, )
)
Appellant, ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9803-CC-00124
)
vs. ) Hawkins County
)
DONAL CAMPBELL, Commissioner, ) Hon. James E. Beckner, Judge
and )
FAYE CLAUDE, Sentence Manager, ) (Sentence Reduction Credits)
)
Appellees. )
)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
MISTY LAVERNE ROBERTS JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General & Reporter
Special Needs Facility - 7A
7575 Cockrill Bend Ind. Rd. ELLEN H. POLLACK
Nashville, TN 37209-1057 A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n er a l
425 Fifth Ave. N., 2d Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. BERKELEY BELL, JR.
District Attorney General
DOUG GODBEE
Assistant District Attorney General
100 E. Main St., Ste. 201
Rogersville, TN 37857
OPINION FILED:________________
AFFIRMED
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
OPINION
The petitioner, Misty Laverne Roberts, appeals from the trial court's
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of her "Motion for Contempt
Proceedings."1 The defendant is presently serving an effective 33-year sentence
in the Department of Correction for her October 3, 1994 convictions of four counts
of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated kidnapping. In her motion and on
appeal, she claims that the named respondents have ignored the trial court's
judgment as regards sentencing by incorrectly calculating her sentence and failing
to correct the error once notified of it. She prays that the respondents be found in
contempt pursuant to Code section 16-1-103 and Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b)
and that a writ of attachment issue against the respondents under Code section 29-
6-101. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law,
we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the motion.
Roberts' complaint is with the Department's application of credits to
her sentence. Generally, a trial court's authority regarding sentencing credits ends
once the inmate enters the Department. Matthew P. Finlaw v. Anderson County
Jail, No. 03C01-9212-CR-00048, slip op. at 4 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Aug. 13,
1993). Tennessee law provides that an inmate who is aggrieved of the
Department's calculation of her sentence should seek her remedy under the
Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-5-101 to -325
(1998); see, e.g., Lonnie Williams v. Bruce McDonald, No. 02C01-9603-CR-00109,
slip op. at 2-3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Mar. 11, 1997); David A. Darnell v. Ricky
Bell, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00275, slip op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, July 5,
1
This filing is a novel one. It is not properly a petition for the writ of
habeas corpus because there is no allegation that the petitioner's convictions are
void or her sentence has expired. See Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn.
1993). Moreover, it raises no claim that the conviction or sentence is void or
voidable based upon constitutional shortcoming; as such, it is not a petition for
post-conviction relief. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997).
2
1996); Brigham v. Lack, 755 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). If the
inmate seeks judicial review once a final agency determination has been made, she
must initiate review in the Davidson County Chancery Court, rather than in the
circuit court in which she was convicted. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-225(a) (1998);
Brigham, 744 S.W.2d at 471. Review of the chancery court's decision lies with the
court of appeals, not this court. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-323 (1998).
Subject matter jurisdiction over challenges of the sort made by the
petitioner is conferred on entities other than the Hawkins County Circuit Court and
the court of criminal appeals. Although this court and the circuit court do possess
contempt powers, we know of no authority which would permit us to use those
powers in an attempt to obtain jurisdiction where none exists. 2
Accordingly, the trial court's dismissal of Roberts' motion is affirmed.
________________________________
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
CONCUR:
2
A 1998 enactment provided that “rule” under the UAPA does not
include “[s]tatements concerning inmates of a correctional or detention facility.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102(10)(G). Under Code section 4-5-223, an individual
may petition an agency for a declaratory order regarding “the validity or
applicability of a statute, rule or order within the primary jurisdiction of the
agency.” Notwithstanding the new subsection (10)(G), the “TOMIS Offender
Sentence Letter” the petitioner received most closely resembles an “order.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102(7) (order determines legal rights, duties, privileges,
immunities or other legal interests of an individual).
3
_______________________________
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
_______________________________
JOHN K. BYERS, SENIOR JUDGE
4