Offender. This Court Affirmed The Appellant'S Sentences, State v. James T. Fite, No. 89

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
March 10, 1998
JAMES T. FITE, )
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9708-CR-00377
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellant, )
Appellate Court Clerk
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
VS. ) (No. 2622 Below)
)
KENNETH LOCKE, WARDEN, ) The Hon. Seth Norman
)
Appellee. ) (Denial of Habeas Corpus Petition)
) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
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. Finding that the trial court properly held that the appellant failed
to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, we grant the state’s motion to affirm
the judgment pursuant to Rule 20.
It appears that the appellant pled guilty in Dekalb County to vehicular
homicide, aggravated assault, and felony bail jumping. He was sentenced to serve
consecutive sentences of eleven, three, and three years, respectively, as a Range I
offender. This Court affirmed the appellant’s sentences, State v. James T. Fite, No. 89-
218-III (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 25, 1990), and subsequently, this Court
affirmed the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief, James T. Fite v. State, No. 01C01-
9209-CC-00271 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 9, 1993), p.t.a. denied, (Tenn. Feb.
7, 1994).
The appellant contends that he was never properly charged with felony bail
jumping and that his sentence credits have not been calculated properly, thus making his
sentences expired and his plea bargain violated. In denying relief, the trial court held:
There is nothing in this petition from which the Court could conclude that the
sentences discussed are, in fact, void. There is nothing in this petition from
which the Court could conclude that the petitioner is being illegally detained.
After a careful reading of this petition, this Court is of the opinion that the
matters raised in the petition should have been questioned in a Post
Conviction Relief Petition. As far as this Court can tell, the statute of
limitations has long since barred in such petition.
It is a well-established principle of law that the remedy of habeas corpus is
limited in its nature and its scope. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 161-162 (Tenn.1993);
Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 626 (Tenn. Crim. App.1994). In Tennessee, habeas
corpus relief is available only if "'it appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of
the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered,' that a convicting court was without
jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant's sentence of
imprisonment or other restraint has expired." Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164
(Tenn.1993) (citation omitted in original). The appellant has the burden of establishing
either a void judgment or an illegal confinement by a preponderance of the evidence.
Passarella, 891 S.W.2d at 627. If he successfully carries his burden, the appellant is
entitled to immediate release. Id. We find that the appellant has failed to sustain his
burden.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. The petitioner
being indigent, costs are taxed to the state.
ENTER, this the ____ day of __________, 1998.
_____________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
(not participating)_______________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
_____________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-