ÿWPC, X# àUNë %9 0(?gU:÷1w@14q… 0D” 0lØ AQD 0D• 0DÙ  D3# V 0Òd 0:6 0dp îÔ 1m {d/ 0Ä“ 0XW 0L¯ {Êû {RÅ {¾ÆÕÆ› Ba 0c~ 0záÆ[Æ! 0ç 0˜ÿÆ—Z] 0D· 0@û 0L; D/‡ D+¶U:á 0L BgU@„eÄ A©Å 0Kn 0J¹ 0T 0^W 0hµ 0r 0| 0†  0‘ 1u! 0d– U>ú U*8!U6b!B)˜!DCÁ! AO"ÝS"†0$†¶$v~<%vÓº&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Beasley CrumMcWherterSolemPreiserTiptonvilleBivensDyersburg Gann T]heBomar02C01RtresentencingTranspBectonT]hereP]andoraFrittsEdmondson2d,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular èDéêUëDìDíîïÓ€ðñäzz!3|xñ(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó' .1Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óHi$$$$'ÿÿdxdBursonBehanMillsapsBallardFortneyCaricoAstro DyleS.W.2d CrimtriersByrge AppHatchettRuffinZ<< KY.quotesindentions for quotesÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓZpp ?·2opinionsopinions text styleÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )ÔÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )Ô(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóóFlanaryBlountvilleBurson HarrS.W.2dtriersByrge Crim App03C01MedlineTiptonMedlin%#Ee37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóó^1$F¯$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ  ÓÓ ÓòòÔ  ÔòòÔ !ÔÓ  ÓÓ Óóóóó(_¸Ç$ÈÈà0  àòòÔ  ÔÔ 8Ôóó(WV $ÆÆò òÔ  ÔÔ Ôó ó^4'FÚâ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ ÓÓ  ÓòòÔ  Ôòòò òÔ !ÔÓ ÓÓ  Óóóóóó ó(WÙë$ÅÅò òòòÔ  ÔÔ Ôó óóó^.!FšÐ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ  ÓÓ ÓòòÔ  ÔÔ !ÔÓ  ÓÓ ÓóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d(;3Ç$´´Ô2EeÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à6"" U 4cite-caseÔ‡XIXXXIÔòòÔ‡XIXXXIÔóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5|NN T2statutesquoted material no indent first lineÓ ÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓÓÓ ÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓÓX  ÏÁ23 inchesindent 3 inches inÓ ¸ ÓÓÓÓ ¸ ÓÓÓ…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 TDOCw]hereBomarH]abeas t]he(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 à66'÷ÿ dxd'ÈÈÈÈdxd`"Arial Regular> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 àüÿP Pd ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT".;3›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô<=?@ABCD ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dPPPP7Border 1dd'.;QCþÿ << Gÿÿ ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€MÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ "ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€MÔÓ  ÓÔ€NÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€NXÔó óÌò òÔ€N¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ9 ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€NXÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€8Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€8ÂÔÔ€NÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€8ÔÔ€8XÔ |Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€MÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ-)ÝÝ  Ýà0 àà àà@ àÚ  ÚÚ  Ú |Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€MÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ-)ÝÝ  Ýà0 àà àà@ àÚ  ÚÚ  ÚPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€MÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€NÔ›Þ ÞÌà àà àÔ€OÔà@ àÔ% € ÔÌòòÔ€NÔà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONÌÓ  ÓóóAUGUST€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓÒ€X€ÒÓ ` <ÓJEROME€SYDNEY€BARRETT,à à*Ìà àà à*Ìà àAppellant,à à*ÌVS.à àà à*à àà à*ÌSTATE€OFÏTENNESSEE,à à*à àà à*à àAppellee.à àÓ ` hÜÓ*Ìà àà à*ÌÓ ` °œXÓà àÉC.C.A.€#€02C01„9508„CC„00233ÌÌLAKE€COUNTY€Ì̜ـ'ÙßR€RSQA1-j|€w â `€€@ÿRß›Hon.€Joe€G.€Riley,€Jr.,€Judge€ÌÌÓÓ(Habeas€Corpus)òòÉÒ/z„Ñ…ÒFor€Appellant:óóÌÓÓJerome€Sydney€BarrettÌPro€Se€ÌLake€County€RegionalÏCorrectional€€€€€Facility€ÌRt.€1,€œBox›€330ÌTiptonville,€TN€€38079ÌÌÌÉòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌEllen€H.€PollackÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌ450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌÓÓÓÓC.€Phillip€BivensÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Drawer€EÌDyersburg,€TN€€38024ÉÒÒÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÓÓÓÓÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÓÓÔ€OÔÌÇÖ€TÖÖ€UÖÔ€NÔà@ àòòò òOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€petitioner€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€his€petition€for€a€writ€ofÏhabeas€corpus.€€There€was€no€evidentiary€hearing.€€While€the€petitioner€submits€anÏextensive€brief€outlining€a€number€of€issues,€we€have€summarized€his€claims€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)à àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€determinedÏthat€sentence€reform€legislation€adopted€in€1979€andÏ1989€did€not€apply€to€petitioner's€sentence;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àwhether€the€subsequent€sentence€reform€actsÏdeny€petitioner€equal€protection€under€the€law€and€dueÏprocess€of€the€law;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àwhether€the€petitioner's€sentence€is€cruel€andÏunusual€punishment;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€appointingÏcounsel€to€represent€the€petitioner€during€this€habeasÏcorpus€proceeding;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)à àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€allowing€theÏpetitioner€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€this€petition;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)à àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€determining€that€itÏdid€not€have€jurisdiction€to€alter€the€petitioner's€sentenceÏin€a€habeas€corpus€proceeding.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€does€not€include€the€original€judgment.€€The€pleadingsÏindicate€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€rape€in€1976€and€sentenced€to€a€term€ofÏsixty€years.€€In€1979€and€then€again€in€1989,€our€state€legislature€changed€theÏstatute€which€governed€the€sentence€for€the€offense.€€The€petitioner€filed€thisÏpetition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus€in€June€of€1995.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€petitionÏwithout€an€evidentiary€hearing,€holding€that€it€had€no€jurisdiction€to€modify€theÏsentence€and€ruling€that€the€petitioner€was€not€entitled€to€habeas€corpus€relief.ÌÌà àà àInitially,€we€must€point€out€that€habeas€corpus€is€limited€in€scope.€€TheÏwrit€of€habeas€corpus,€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€29„21„101€to€„130,€will€issueÏonly€in€the€case€of€a€void€judgment€or€to€free€a€prisoner€held€in€custody€after€hisÏterm€of€imprisonment€has€expired.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Hall€v.€Meadowsóó,€389€S.W.2d€256,Ï259€(Tenn.€1965).€€Unlike€the€post„conviction€petition,€the€purpose€of€a€habeasÏcorpus€petition€is€to€contest€void,€and€not€merely€voidable,€judgments.€€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏex€rel.€Newsom€v.€Hendersonóó,€424€S.W.2d€186,€189€(Tenn.€1968).€€"A€petitionerÏcannot€collaterally€attack€a€facially€valid€conviction€in€a€habeas€corpusÏproceeding."€€òòPotts€v.€Stateóó,€833€S.W.2d€60,€62€(Tenn.€1992).ò ò€€ó óHabeas€corpusÏactions€may,€however,€be€brought€to€contest€an€illegal€confinement€at€any€timeÏwhile€the€petitioner€is€incarcerated.€€òòArcher€v.€Stateóó,€851€S.W.2d€157,€164€(Tenn.Ï1993).€œÌ›Ìà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€he€is€being€held€beyond€the€expiration€dateÏof€his€sentence.€€He€argues€that€the€1989€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€ActÏrepealed€the€law€applicable€at€the€time€of€his€sentence€and€thus,€mandates€aÏresentencing€within€the€1989€guidelines.€He€asserts€that€under€the€new€guidelinesÏhe€would€be€entitled€to€immediate€release.ÌÌà àà àWe€cannot€agree.€€The€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„117(c)Ïis€clear:€€"For€all€persons€who€committed€crimes€prior€to€July€1,€1982,€prior€law€shallÏapply€and€remain€in€full€force€and€effect€in€every€respect,€including,€but€not€limitedÏto,€sentencing,€parole€and€probation."€€In€òòState€ex€rel.€Stewart€v.€McWherteróó,€857ÏS.W.2d€875€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€this€court€held€that€the€"1989€Sentencing€ActÏprovides€that€it€applies€only€to€those€offenders€who€are€sentenced€after€its€effectiveÏdate"€on€November€1,€1989.€€òòIdóó.€at€876.€€While€the€1989€Act€benefitted€someÏoffenders€who€committed€their€crimes€between€1982€and€1989€and€wereÏsentenced€after€its€effective€date,€œit›€does€not€apply€to€the€petitioner.€€œòòSeeóó›€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„117(b).€€The€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€by€itsÏexpress€language,€did€"not€affect€rights€and€duties€that€matured,€penalties€that€wereÏincurred,€or€proceedings€that€were€begun€before€its€effective€date."€€1989€Tenn.ÍPub.€Acts€ch.€591,€ðð€115.€€Those€persons€who€had€been€convicted€of€crimes€prior€toÏJuly€1,€1982,€such€as€the€petitioner,€remained€under€the€"prior€law€...€in€everyÏrespect,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€sentencing,€parole€and€probation."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„117(c).€€Ìà àà àÌà àà à€In€the€alternative,€the€petitioner€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„114€(1975),€which€has€been€repealed€and€replaced€by€ðð€œ39„1„105€(1982)›€and€laterÏððœ39„11„112€(1989),›€would€require€the€state€to€reduce€his€sentence.€€The€petitionerÏclaims€that€ðð€œ39„114›€must€be€applied€because€it€was€the€statute€in€force€both€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense€and€his€sentence:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò39„114.€€Repealed€or€amended€laws„„Application€in€prosecution€for€offenseó ó„„WheneverÏany€penal€statute€or€penal€legislative€act€of€the€state€isÏrepealed€or€amended€by€a€subsequent€legislative€act,Ïany€offense,€as€defined€by€such€statute€or€act€beingÏrepealed€or€amended,€committed€while€such€statute€orÏact€was€in€full€force€and€effect€òòshall€be€prosecuted€underÏsuch€act€or€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€commissionÏof€the€offense.€€In€the€event€the€subsequent€act€providesÏfor€a€lesser€penalty,€any€punishment€imposed€shall€be€inÏaccordance€with€the€subsequent€act.óóÌÌÓÓ(emphasis€added).€€The€petitioner€claims€the€definition€of€"prosecution"€includesÏthe€total€period€during€which€he€is€serving€his€sentence€under€the€prior€law;€heÏasserts€that€any€favorable€changes€in€the€sentencing€statute€must€be€applied€to€hisÍsentence.€€œÌÌÌ›à àà àWe€cannot€agree.€€The€term€"prosecution"€does€not€include€theÏenforcement€of€the€sentence.€€Section€39„114,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.,€applies€only€inÏcases€where€the€accused€is€to€be€tried€under€the€substantive€law€in€effect€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense€and€a€new€statute,€calling€for€a€lesser€punishment,€is€enactedÏbefore€the€imposition€of€the€sentence.€€Here€the€petitioner€was€sentenced€someÏthree€years€before€the€first€change€in€the€rape€statute€in€1979€and€thirteen€yearsÏbefore€the€second€in€1989.€€ÌÌà@ àò òII€and€IIIó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner€claims€that€his€lengthier€sentence€denies€equalÏprotection€under€the€law€and€due€process€of€the€law.€€Article€11,€section€8€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€prohibits€legislation€providing€favorable€treatment€to€anyÏindividual€or€class€of€individuals.€€The€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€is€closely€akin€to€our€state's€constitutional€provision.€€òòSeeóó€òòMarionÏCounty,€Tenn.,€River€Transp.€Co.€v.€Stokesóó,€117€S.W.2d€740€(Tenn.€1938).€€AllÏpersons€similarly€situated€must€be€treated€alike.€€The€legislature€may,€however,Ïtreat€a€class€of€persons€differently€so€long€as€the€classification€has€a€reasonableÍrelationship€to€a€legitimate€state€interest.€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€ex€rel.€Bobby€L.€Crum€v.€Ned€McWherter,€et€al.óó,€our€court€applied€thisÏ"rational€basis"€test€in€similar€circumstances:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]here€is€a€legitimate€state€interest€at€stake€in€notÏallowing€the€reopening€of€a€virtual€[P]andora's€box€of€allÏcases€involving€sentences€imposed€before€November€1,Ï1989,€but€which€are€presently€being€served€byÏconfinement,€parole€or€probation.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àSociety€has€a€strong€interest€in€preserving€theÏfinality€of€criminal€litigation€resulting€in€a€conviction€andÏsentence€which€were€valid€at€the€time€of€their€imposition.€ÏThe€wholesale€unsettling€of€final€judgments€of€convictionÏÑ7€4 ¾4XXdìXXdì7Ñand€sentence€which€would€occur€if€the€1989€Act€wereÏapplicable€as€the€petitioner€claims€is€a€price€theÏlegislature€was€justified€in€not€paying€when€it€providedÏthat€the€Act€would€not€apply€to€previously€sentencedÏoffenders.€€ÌÌÓÓNo.€02C01„9108„CC„0018€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€May€13,Ï1992).€ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€do€not€find€any€reason€to€apply€a€more€stringentÏconstitutional€standard,€this€particular€statute€would€also€pass€constitutional€musterÏunder€a€strict€scrutiny€test.€€€Applying€a€strict€scrutiny€test€would€not€automaticallyÏinvalidate€the€legislation.€€If€a€compelling€state€interest€can€be€shown,€legislationÍcan€survive€a€strict€scrutiny€test€even€though€a€fundamental€right€is€involved€or€aÏ"suspect€class"€and€other€persons€are€not€treated€equally.€€òòDoe€v.€Norrisóó,€751ÏS.W.2d€834,€841€(Tenn.€1988).€ÌÌà àà àAlthough€there€were€other€reasons,€the€1989€Act€was€primarilyÏdeveloped€to€relieve€prison€overcrowding.€€By€applying€the€reforms€to€current€andÏfuture€cases,€the€legislature€was€able€to€reduce,€or€at€least€better€control,€prisonÏpopulations.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€ex€rel.€Stewartóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€877.€€The€avoidance€of€theÏtime€and€expense€associated€with€any€resentencing€procedure€for€previouslyÏconvicted€and€sentenced€prison€inmates€is,€standing€alone,€a€compelling€reason€toÏjustify€different€treatment.€Thus,€we€find€neither€equal€protection€nor€classÏlegislation€violations€under€even€the€most€stringent€test€possible.€ÌÌà àà àIn€a€related€argument,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€the€passage€of€theÏ1989€Act€impliedly€declared€the€prior€sentencing€range,€eight€years€to€life,€to€beÏcruel,€unusual,€and€disparate.€€We€disagree.€€The€Eighth€Amendment€prohibitsÏsentences€disproportionately€severe€when€compared€to€the€crime€committed.€€JustÏbecause€a€penalty€is€reduced€by€new€legislation€does€not€mean,€however,€that€theÏsentence€under€the€prior€law€was€disproportionate.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€has€not€cited€any€authority€to€support€his€claim€that€hisÏsixty„year€sentence€is€disproportionate€for€the€offense€of€rape.€€In€òòState€v.€Gannóó,Ï733€S.W.2d€113€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€this€court€held€a€sentence€of€ninety„nineÏyears€for€aggravated€rape€was€not€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€The€legislatureÏmay€limit€a€new€sentencing€enactment€to€prospective€application€withoutÏdetermining€that€the€old€sentencing€structure€was€a€violation€of€the€EighthÏAmendment.€€That€is€the€very€case€here.€€We€do€not€find€the€prior€sentenceÏconstitutionally€infirm.ÌÌà@ àò òIV€and€Vó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€declined€toÏappoint€counsel€to€represent€the€petitioner€for€this€proceeding€and€failed€to€affordÏan€evidentiary€hearing.ÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€court€has€previously€held€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 à[There€is€no€requirement]€that€counsel€should€beÏappointed€in€all€cases€requesting€the€writ€of€habeasÏcorpus€before€dismissal€of€incompetent€petitions.€€WhileÏit€is€true€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„14„204€allows€the€appointment€of€counsel€"if€necessary"€inÏhabeas€corpus€proceedings,€there€is€no€constitutionalÏright€to€counsel€in€a€habeas€corpus€proceeding.€€ÌÌòòÓÓElmer€Lester€Fritts€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9210„CC„00243€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Jackson,€Sept€22,€1993)(citations€omitted).€€"It€is€elementary€that€a€habeasÏcorpus€petition€may€be€dismissed€without€a€hearing,€and€without€the€appointmentÏof€counsel€for€a€hearing,€unless€it€alleges€facts€showing€the€denial€of€state€orÏfederal€constitutional€rights€or€some€fatal€jurisdictional€fault."€€òòState€ex€rel.ÏEdmondson€v.€Hendersonóó,€421€S.W.2d€635,€636„37€(Tenn.€1967).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòStateÏex€rel.€Wood€v.€Johnsonóó,€393€S.W.2d€135€(Tenn.€1965);€òòState€ex€rel.€Hall€v.ÏMeadowsóó,€389€S.W.2d€256€(Tenn.€1965);€òòBland€v.€Stateóó,€451€S.W.2d€699€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1969);€òòState€ex€rel.€Goss€v.€Heeróó,€413€S.W.2d€688€(Tenn.€1967);€òòHoraceÏJones€v.€Raneyóó,€No.€02C01„9402„CC„00021€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€JuneÏ21,€1995).€€ÌÌà àà àFirst,€the€petitioner€has€no€absolute€right€to€counsel.€€Nothing€in€thisÏrecord€demonstrates€that€one€was€"necessary"€with€the€meaning€of€the€statute.€ÏSecondly,€there€is€no€mandatory€right€to€a€hearing€and€the€trial€court€is€not€requiredÏto€hear€proof€unless€the€petitioner€raises€a€colorable€claim€in€his€petition.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€ex€rel.€Byrd€v.€Bomaróó,€381€S.W.2d€280€(Tenn.€1964).€€Section€29„21„109,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.,€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIf,€from€the€showing€of€the€petitioner,€the€plaintiff€wouldÏnot€be€entitled€to€any€relief,€the€writ€may€be€refused,€theÏreasons€for€such€refusal€being€briefly€endorsed€upon€theÍpetition,€or€appended€thereto.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€procedure.€€None€of€theÏpetitioner's€claims,€even€if€factually€accurate,€would€have€established€that€theÏconviction€was€void€or€his€sentence€had€expired.€ÌÌà@ àò òVIó óÌÓÓÓÓà àà àIn€the€alternative,€the€petitioner€seeks€some€form€of€equitable€relief€byÏhaving€the€trial€court€modify€or€correct€his€sentence.€€He€argues€he€is€entitled€to€thisÏrelief€because€of€the€constitutional€deprivations,€namely€class€legislation€andÏdenial€of€equal€protection€of€the€laws.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983.€€The€trial€court€heldÏthat€it€had€no€jurisdiction€to€modify€the€sentence.€€We€must€agree€with€the€trial€court;Ïthe€petitioner€is€simply€not€entitled€to€relief€no€matter€what€the€procedure.€€The€onlyÏrelief€available€under€the€state€writ€of€habeas€corpus€is€release€from€custody.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„21„122(a).€€"No€statutory€provision€is€made€for€passing€onÏthe€validity€of€the€judgment€other€than€to€release€or€detain.€€òòUssery€v.€Averyóó,€432ÏS.W.2d€656,€658€(Tenn.€1968).€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€could€not€resentence€theÏdefendant.€€Neither€declaratory€judgment€nor€other€œequit›œable›€remedies€may€beÏused€to€challenge€the€fact€or€duration€of€imprisonment.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€state,€one€who€is€restrained€of€his€liberty€may€inquire€into€theÏcause€of€his€imprisonment€through€the€remedy€of€habeas€corpus.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€29„21„101.€€If€his€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€anÏabridgment€of€any€right€guarded€by€the€Tennessee€Constitution€or€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€he€may€seek€relief€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202.€€Except€in€limited€circumstances€under€the€UniformÏAdministrative€Procedure€Act€and€writ€of€certiorari,€these€two€remedies€are€theÏexclusive€means€by€which€a€prisoner€may€obtain€relief€from€confinement.Ìà àà àÌà àà àIn€the€federal€courts,€the€remedies€of€declaratory€judgment,€injunctiveÏrelief,€civil€rights€remedies,€and€mandamus€cannot€be€used€by€a€prisoner€toÏchallenge€the€length€of€his€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòPreiser€v.€Rodriguezóó,€411€U.S.€475Ï(1973).€€Habeas€corpus€is€the€only€federal€remedy:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€broad€language€of€ðð€1983€.€.€.€is€notÏconclusive€of€the€issue€before€us.€€The€statute€is€aÏgeneral€one,€and,€despite€the€literal€applicability€of€itsÏterms,€the€question€remains€whether€the€specific€federalÏhabeas€corpus€statute,€explicitly€and€historicallyÏdesigned€to€provide€the€means€for€a€state€prisoner€toÏattack€the€validity€of€his€confinement,€must€beÏunderstood€to€be€the€exclusive€remedy€available€in€aÏsituation€...€where€it€so€clearly€applies.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€489.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àSimilarly,€state€courts€should€limit€the€procedural€avenues€availableÏto€challenge€confinement€to€those€specifically€designed€to€do€so.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilliams€v.ÏDavisóó,€386€So.2d€415,€417€(Ala.€1980).€€In€our€view,€habeas€corpus€and€petitionsÏfiled€pursuant€to€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€have€such€a€design.€€As€such,Ïthey€are€the€exclusive€state€remedies€for€relief.ÌÌÓÓà0 àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌšÌÌà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJerry€L.€Smith,€JudgešÌÌ€