ÿWPCx …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ Þ w@æ 0@& 0Jf 0T° 0^ 0hb 0rÊ 0|< 0†¸ 0> 1uÎ 0dCU6§U.ÝU* B)5DC^ AM¡iîfWv~½ D3;vÓn 01A 0Dr B¶ AOÓÆ" 0Dè D/, B[˜HP LaserJet 4M PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiU”$3|x «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ö÷øùúûDüýDþÿÓ€("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 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 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ _Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMay€19,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`2222'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(á(3Ë<$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€{æXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó d€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€""Xd#ÑÑ#€""Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#Ô›Ñ7€ Ü© XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€FEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓWILLIAM€L.€CHURCH,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à à€No.€03C01„9604„CR„00144Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Hamilton€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€Judge€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à€€€à à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌArdena€J.€Garth€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌDonna€Robinson€Millerà àà àà àElizabeth€T.€RyanÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€Ï701€Cherry€Street,€Suite€300à àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€CoxÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37492ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€William€L.€Church,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€HamiltonÏCounty€Criminal€Courtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€both€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€andÏpost„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€contends€the€following:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€the€trial€court€erred€(a)€in€holding€that€the€post„convictionÏpetition€was€time„barred€and€(b)€in€raising€the€issue€of€theÏstatute€of€limitations€on€its€own;€andÌÌà8 à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€it€lacked€habeasÏcorpus€jurisdiction€because€the€petitioner€is€imprisoned€inÏanother€state.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓAlthough€we€agree€that€the€trial€court€had€jurisdiction€of€the€petitionerððs€habeas€corpusÏaction,€we€affirm€the€dismissal.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€attacks€a€1980€passing€a€forged€check€conviction€and€fourÏ1981€aggravated€assault€convictions,€all€entered€upon€pleas€of€guilty.€€These€sameÏfive€convictions€were€contested€in€prior,€consolidated€post„conviction/habeas€corpusÏpetitions.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€including€personal€affidavits€submitted€by€theÏpetitioner,€the€petitioner€was€denied€any€relief.€€The€denial€was€affirmed€on€appeal.€ÏòòWilliam€L.€Church€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„00242,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€July€15,€1993),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Oct.€4,€1993).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€filed€September€18,€1995,€againÏalleges€various€infirmities€in€the€guilty€plea€process€that€were€considered€and€resolvedÏin€the€prior€post„conviction€case.€€It€also€alleges€that€his€counsel€in€that€prior€case€wasÏineffective€for€not€filing€certain€allegations€and€not€presenting€witnesses€andÏdocumentation.€€Finally,€the€petition€questions€whether€the€petitioner€is€the€person€whoÏpled€guilty€and€was€convicted€of€the€offenses€as€shown€in€the€guilty€plea€transcriptsÏand€documents€generated€during€his€first€post„conviction€case.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€held€that€it€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€hear€the€petition€forÏwrit€of€habeas€corpus€because€the€petitioner€was€not€in€the€state€of€Tennessee.€€As€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€petition€œwas›€time„barred.ÌÌà@ àò òIó ó.€€à@ àò òPost„Convictionó óÌà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€he€is€not€time„barred€from€obtaining€post„conviction€relief€and€that€the€trial€court€could€not€dismiss€his€petition€as€time„barredÏwhen€the€state€had€not€raised€the€statute€of€limitations€in€defense€to€the€petition.€ÏHowever,€we€believe€that€the€trial€courtððs€actions€are€justified€under€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedures€Act.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€convictions€occurred€in€1980€and€1981.€€Pursuant€to€theÏformer€Post„Conviction€Procedures€Act,€the€petitioner€was€required€to€file€a€post„conviction€petition€by€July€1,€1989.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990)€(repealed€1995);ÏòòState€v.€Abstonóó,€749€S.W.2d€487€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Thus,€the€present€petitionÏwas€not€timely€filed€under€the€former€act.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€contends,€though,€that€the€1995€Post„ConvictionÏProcedures€Act€that€replaced€the€former€act€provided€a€window€of€opportunity€withinÏwhich€post„conviction€petitioners€could€file€a€petition€based€upon€previously€existingÏgrounds.€€He€notes€that€his€petition€was€filed€during€that€time.€€However,€our€supremeÏcourt€has€construed€the€provisions€of€the€1995€act€as€not€allowing€the€filing€of€aÏpetition€upon€grounds€that€were€already€time„barred€when€the€1995€act€becameÏeffective.€€òòSeeóó€òò€Carter€v.€Stateóó,€œ952€S.W.2d€417,€420€(Tenn.€1997).€›€œThus,›€the€1995€actÍdid€not€provide€an€opportunity€for€the€petitioner€to€file€a€post„conviction€petitionÏregarding€his€1981€convictions.€€ÌÌà àAs€for€the€trial€courtððs€dismissing€the€petition€as€time„barred€without€theÏissue€being€raised€by€the€state,€we€view€the€1995€act€to€call€for€such€a€procedure.€ÏPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„206,€the€trial€court€was€required€to€conduct€a€preliminaryÏreview€of€the€petition.€€If€it€appeared€from€the€face€of€the€petition€that€it€was€not€timelyÏfiled,€the€trial€court€was€to€dismiss€the€action.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„206(b).€€It€did.€€No€actionÏby€the€state€was€required€at€that€time.€€Moreover,€nothing€in€the€Post„ConvictionÏProcedures€Act€prevents€the€trial€court€from€noticing€such€a€bar€to€a€petition€upon€itsÏown€motion.€€òòCompareóó€òòHandley€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€223,€224€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994)€(trial€court€could€notice€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€under€theÏformer€Post„Conviction€Act€without€it€being€raised€by€the€state).€€Thus,€the€dismissal€ofÏthe€post„conviction€claims€was€appropriate.€€ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Habeas€Corpusó óÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€had€jurisdiction€of€his€habeasÏcorpus€case.€€He€relies€upon€œòòLewis›€v.€Metropolitan€General€Sessions€Court€forÏNashville,€et€al.óó,€œ949€S.W.2d€696€(Tenn.›€Crim.€œApp.›€1996),€in€which€this€court€indicatedÏthat€an€out„of„state€prisoner€may€be€able€to€prosecute€a€habeas€corpus€case€inÏTennessee€regarding€a€void€conviction.€€The€state€acknowledges€that€under€òòLewisóó,€theÍtrial€court€ð ðmightðð€have€had€jurisdiction,€but€it€argues€that€the€petition€did€not€stateÏgrounds€for€habeas€corpus€relief.€€ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€an€out„of„state€prisoner€may€seek€habeas€corpus€relief€inÏTennessee€from€a€Tennessee€conviction.€€ð ðAny€person€imprisoned€or€restrained€of€hisÏliberty,€under€any€pretense€whatsoever,€except€[those€held€under€federal€authority],Ïmay€prosecute€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€to€inquire€into€the€cause€of€such€imprisonmentÏand€restraint.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„21„101.€€The€restraint€need€not€involve€imprisonment.€€InÏòòState€ex€rel.€Dillehay€v.€Whiteóó,€217€Tenn.€524,€œ527„28,›€398€S.W.2d€737,€738€(1966),Ïour€supreme€court€allowed€a€habeas€corpus€action€to€test€the€legality€of€an€orderÏrequiring€the€indigent€petitioner€to€be€placed€in€jail€to€work€out€the€court€costs.€€EvenÏthough€the€petitioner€was€not€in€jail,€having€made€bail,€the€trial€court€concluded€thatÏshe€was€still€restricted€in€her€liberty€pending€the€appeal.€€In€òòState€v.€œMcCrawóó,›€551ÏS.W.2d€692,€694€(Tenn.€1997),€a€post„conviction€case,€our€supreme€court€consideredÏthe€loss€of€the€right€to€vote€because€of€a€felony€conviction€to€be€a€ð ðrestraint€on€liberty.ðð€ÏIt€also€quoted€from€United€States€Supreme€Court€cases€relative€to€federal€habeasÏcorpus€being€allowed€as€long€as€any€collateral€legal€consequence€flows€from€aÏconviction,€such€as,€loss€of€citizenship,€enhancement€of€future€criminal€punishment,Ïand€evidentiary€impeachment€of€character.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€òòCarafas€v.€LaValleeóó,€391€U.S.€234,Ï237,€88€S.€Ct.€1556,€1559€(1968)€and€òòSibron€v.€New€Yorkóó,€392€U.S.€40,€57,€88€S.€Ct.Ïœ1889,›€1900€(1965).€€Thus,€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€is€not€physically€in€custody€inÍTennessee€is€irrelevant€if€he€is€otherwise€restrained€of€his€liberty€by€virtue€of€hisÏTennessee€convictions.€€ÌÌà àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„21„105,€a€petition€for€habeas€œcorpus€relief›€mustÏbe€filed€in€the€court€ð ðmost€convenient€in€point€of€distance€to€the€applicantðð€unlessÏsufficient€reason€is€given€for€applying€to€another€court.€€For€a€Tennessee€prisoner,€thisÏmeans€the€presumptive€venue€is€in€the€county€of€incarceration.€€However,€for€a€personÏin€custody€in€another€state€who€is€attacking€a€Tennessee€judgment€of€conviction€asÏbeing€void,€the€most€fitting€forum€would€normally€be€the€œcounty›€in€which€the€convictionÏwas€received.€€This€is€what€has€occurred€in€the€present€case.€€ÌÌà àWe€acknowledge€that€in€òòArcher€v.€Stateóó,€851€S.W.2d€157,€165€(Tenn.Ï1993),€our€supreme€court€questioned€whether€an€out„of„state€prisoner€has€access€toÏhabeas€corpus€relief€in€Tennessee€ð ðsince€the€writ,€if€issued,€could€not€be€directed€to€aÏTennessee€official.ðð€€However,€given€the€fact€that€the€gravamen€of€the€habeas€corpusÏcomplaint€relates€to€a€criminal€conviction€being€void,€then€the€Tennessee€officialÏresponsible€for€imposition€of€the€judgment€of€conviction€may€be€an€appropriate€party.€ÏFor€instance,€this€court€ordered€the€grant€of€habeas€corpus€relief€from€a€constitutionallyÏvoid€condition€of€probation€contained€in€a€judgment€of€conviction€with€the€writ€issuingÏagainst€the€court€that€imposed€the€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€òòLeonard€v.€Criminal€Court€ofÏDavidson€County,€Tennessee,€Division€IIIóó,€804€S.W.2d€891€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€ÍThus,€we€conclude€that€when€an€out„of„state€prisoner€seeks€habeas€corpus€relief€œfrom›Ïa€Tennessee€conviction€as€a€void€restraint€on€his€or€her€liberty,€œa›€court€of€œthe€county€ofÏthe›€original€conviction€has€jurisdiction€to€rule€upon€the€prisonerððs€petition.€€ÌÌà àAs€previously€noted,€though,€the€state€contends€that€the€petitioner€doesÏnot€allege€that€his€convictions€are€void.€€The€petitionerððs€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€does€notÏexpressly€state€that€the€convictions€are€void.€€It€alleges€that€he€is€not€the€person€whoÏpled€guilty€and€was€convicted€as€shown€in€the€guilty€plea€hearing€transcripts€andÏrecords€previously€provided€to€him.€€In€his€brief€on€appeal,€the€petitionerððs€position€is€Ïpresented€as€follows:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àà àFor€purposes€of€appellate€review€of€a€dismissal€of€aÏpetition€at€the€pleading€stage,€an€appellate€court€ð ðmustÏaccept€that€alleged€as€true,€unless€clearly€contrary€to€whatÏhas€already€been€adjudicated.ðð€€òòSwanson€v.€Stateóó,€749ÏS.W.2d€731,€735€(Tenn.€1988),€quoting€òòSkinner€v.€Stateóó,Ï472€S.W.2d€903,€904€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€PetitionerÏhas€sworn€and€it€has€never€been€controverted€that€he€is€òònotóóÏthe€individual€who€entered€the€pleas€to€the€charges€whichÏare€the€subject€of€the€instant€case€but€rather€his€actualÏcases€were€confused€with€the€instant€cases€resulting€in€aÏmiscarriage€of€justice.€€Accordingly,€Petitionerððs€convictionsÏwould€be€fully€void€for€want€of€personal€jurisdiction€ratherÏthan€voidable.€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„21„101€aÏWrit€of€Habeas€Corpus€is€the€proper€remedy€for€any€personÏillegally€imprisoned€or€restrained€of€his€liberty.€€IfÏPetitionerððs€actual€convictions€were€confused€with€anotherððsÏconvictions€and€he€is€not€the€person€who€pled€guilty€to€theÏunderlying€convictions€in€this€case,€then€the€writ€filed€by€himÏwas€clearly€the€only€appropriate€way€for€him€to€proceed€andÏthe€Trial€Court€should€have€permitted€same.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€stateððs€brief€does€not€address€this€argument.€€ÌÑ€(ÑÇà àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€allegations€in€the€petition€merit€the€issuance€ofÏa€writ€or€further€hearing,€particularly€when€viewed€in€the€context€of€his€previousÏlitigation€on€these€convictions.€€We€start€by€noting€that€the€petition€does€not€allege€thatÏthe€petitioner€was€not,€in€fact€and€law,€convicted€in€Hamilton€County€of€forgery€and€fourÏcounts€of€aggravated€assault€upon€his€pleas€of€guilt.€€Rather,€it€alleges€that€the€guiltyÏplea€hearing€transcript€reflects€that€the€petitioner€was€not€the€person€pleading€guiltyÏbecause€the€transcript€shows€the€presence€of€an€attorney€who€the€petitioner€claimsÏonly€represented€him€at€the€preliminary€hearing,€not€in€criminal€court.€€However,€theÏpetition€also€alleges€circumstances€that€inherently€indicate€that€the€petitioner€hadÏcounsel€and€pled€guilty€pursuant€to€a€plea€bargain.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€petitionerððs€sworn€affidavits€submitted€as€evidence€in€hisÏformer€post„conviction€cases€acknowledge€these€convictions€upon€guilty€pleas.€€In€oneÏaffidavit,€he€states€in€part:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àà à3.€€I€was€sentenced€for€the€offenses€of€aggravatedÏassault€on€Indictment€Nos.€145706,€145707,€145708,€andÏ145709.€€My€sentences€were€pronounced€on€May€4,€1981.€ÏThe€terms€of€my€sentences€are€confinement€in€theÏWorkhouse€for€not€less€than€two€(2)€years€nor€more€thanÏtwo€(2)€years€to€run€consecutive€to€the€sentence€forÏIndictment€No.€142996.€€ÌÌà à.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à5.€€The€guilty€pleas€which€I€entered€were€not€knowingÏand€voluntary,€in€that€I€was€under€extreme€stress€andÏduress€because€I€had€undergone€a€lengthy€and€highlyÍpublicized€trial€several€months€earlier,€and€because€theÏplea€agreement€was€entered€into€due€to€promises,Ïcoercion,€and€duress€from€the€prosecution€and€my€attorney.€€à0 àÌÌà à.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à8.€€The€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€theÏconvictions€of€felonious€assault€since€I€acted€in€self„defenseÏand€since€hands,€feet€and€a€pool€cue€are€not€deadlyÏweapons€within€the€meaning€of€the€statute.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€other€affidavit€acknowledges€his€1980€guilty€plea€and€sentencing€for€passing€aÏforged€check€and,€likewise,€alleges€the€petitionerððs€innocence€of€the€crime€because€heÏsigned€his€own€name€to€the€back€of€the€check€and€did€not€intend€to€commit€a€criminalÏact.€€ÌÌà àWe€do€not€have€to€ignore€the€claims€made€and€the€position€taken€by€theÏpetitioner€in€his€former€collateral€attacks€upon€the€same€convictions€at€issue€in€thisÏcase.€€In€fact,€we€may€take€judicial€notice€of€the€court€records€and€actions€thereon€inÏthe€earlier€attack€upon€these€convictions.€€In€the€former€proceeding,€the€petitioner€wasÏfound€to€have€entered€knowing€and€voluntary€guilty€pleas€to€four€aggravated€assaultÏcharges€on€May€7,€1981,€and€to€a€charge€of€passing€a€forged€check€on€November€18,Ï1980.€€The€indictment€numbers€relative€to€those€convictions€are€the€same€ones€thatÏare€contained€in€the€present€case.€€Thus,€the€convictions€in€question€have€beenÏpreviously€adjudicated€to€belong€to€the€petitioner.€€ÌÌà àThus,€contrary€to€the€petitionerððs€brief,€the€petitioner€himself,€by€swornÏaffidavit,€has€controverted€any€claim€that€he€is€not€the€person€who€entered€the€pleas€inÏthe€cases€he€attacks.€€In€this€respect,€it€is€also€significant€that€the€petitioner€does€notÏallege€that€he€now€has€eight€aggravated€assault€and€two€passing€forged€checkÏconvictions€upon€guilty€pleas€out€of€Hamilton€County€on€his€record.€€In€sum,€theÏpetitionerððs€allegations€in€his€petition,€viewed€in€the€context€of€his€past€litigation€onÏthese€same€convictions,€do€not€lead€to€the€conclusion€that€the€convictions€about€whichÏhe€complains€are€void.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€from€the€showing€of€the€petitioner,Ïhe€would€not€be€entitled€to€relief€and€a€writ€was€properly€refused€without€a€hearing.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€29„21„109;€òòRussell€v.€State€ex€rel.€Willisóó,€222€Tenn.€491,€437€S.W.2d€529Ï(1969).ÌÌÇà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌThomas€T.€Woodall,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ€€à0 à