ÿWPC&) …U:V %U .–ÄnXÔ, 0ß4 U: w@M 4 0#¡ 0DÄ 0J 0TR ¦ 0^¬ 0h  0rr 0|ä 0†` 0æ 1uvU,ë 0d B{U,˜B)ÄDCí AM0 D3}»°Jk 0@µwõíl×Yv~0 vÓ®! AO'ÆÐ' 0D–( D/Ú( B )<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|x «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP(·6/$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€Xö$XXXÔÑ` ÑÑÜÜÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter[  AØ'ÿred 3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ý [þ ÿ E [  D  Ie D Ó€Ô¡¨ ppppp8(Ó(3¡½$¤¤Ý ƒ6/!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€XPÊXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑTRY 3Ø' Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔHH2, 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌAugustÏ22,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Petitioner€also€sought€habeas€corpus€relief€in€the€United€States€District€court€for€the€MiddleÏDistrict€of€Tennessee.€€òòSeeóó€òòMilton€Lee€Holt€v.€Larry€Lack,€Wardenóó,€Civil€Action€No.€3:88„0674€(M.D.ÏTenn.,€January€5,€1989,€Nashville),€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€district€courtÏdenied€relief€without€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòHoltóó,€No.€01C01„9110„CC„00321,€slip€op.€at€3.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€ôÔò òPlace€of€application€for€writ.ó 󀄀The€application€should€be€made€to€the€court€or€judge€mostÏconvenient€in€point€of€distance€to€the€applicant,€unless€a€sufficient€reason€be€given€for€not€applyingÏto€such€court€or€judge.€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„21„105€(1980€Repl.)€Ì ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Ô€ôÔIn€the€trial€court,€the€petitioner€did€not€ask€that€the€petition€be€treated€as€one€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€did€not€ask€that€the€suit€be€transferred€to€the€Williamson€County€Circuit€Court.€ÏHe€never€argued€that€the€grounds€for€relief€were€such€that€the€statute€of€limitations€would€not€bar€hisÏpetition.€€Ì ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔ€The€state€filed€the€motion€the€day€before€the€hearing,€and€defense€counsel€had€justÏreceived€a€copy.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ ° ÑÑ7€†¡XXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` p` ˜XÓÔ% € Ԝـ€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›à@ àó óIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àJUNE€1994€SESSIONÌÌÌÌMILTON€HOLT,€à àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.Ï01C01„9402„CR„00056Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidsonÏCountyÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€andà àà à)à àHon.ÏThomas€Shriver,€JudgeÌMIKE€DUTTON,€Warden,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(HabeasÏCorpus)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THEÏAPPELLEEóó:ÌÌThomas€T.€Overtonà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌ213€Third€Avenue,€Northà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€of€TennesseeÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCecil€H.ÏRossà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminalÏJustice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,ÏTN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGeorgeÏBondsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Ave.€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_________________Ì€€€€€€ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌPER€CURIAM€€€€€€Ì€€€€€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àÌà àà àÌà àà àà àÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€à à€€€€ÌÓÓÌà àThe€petitioner,€Milton€Holt,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€dismissal€of€hisÏpetition€for€habeas€corpus€relief€in€which€he€claimed€that€his€aggravated€rapeÏconvictions€and€sentences€were€void.€€After€a€brief€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€judgeÏdenied€the€requested€relief.€€For€the€reasons€discussed€below€we€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àÌà àA€review€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€this€case€will€place€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€in€context.€€In€1985,€petitioner€entered€a€nolo€contendere€plea€to€oneÏcount€of€aggravated€rape€of€his€daughter,€Karen,€and€a€similar€plea€to€one€count€ofÍaggravated€rape€of€his€son,€Willie,€and€is€now€serving€an€effective€twenty„yearÏsentence€at€the€Riverbend€Maximum€Security€Institution€in€Davidson€County.€€TheÏpleas€were€entered€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€County.€€Petitioner€filed€aÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€Williamson€County€in€which€petitioner€allegedÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€trial€court€denied€relief€after€an€evidentiaryÏhearing.€€òòMilton€Holt€v.€Stateóó,€No.€86„67„III,€Williamson€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€March€3,Ï1987),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€June€8,€1987).€€A€second€petition,€initiated€as€a€habeasÏcorpus€proceeding€in€Davidson€County,€was€transferred€to€Williamson€County€as€aÏpost„conviction€petition.€€The€case€was€dismissed€as€inappropriate€for€habeas€corpusÏrelief€and€untimely€under€the€post„conviction€statute.€€òòMilton€Holt€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9110„CC„00321,€Williamson€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€12,€1992),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1992).× ƒ, ××  ×€€€€ÌÌà àIn€1993,€petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€habeas€corpus€relief€in€theÏCriminal€Court€of€Davidson€County.€€Appointed€counsel€filed€two€amended€petitions,Ïthe€last€on€September€27,€1993.€€The€petitions€alleged€that€the€facts€read€into€theÏrecord€to€form€the€legal€basis€for€Holtððs€convictions€were€œfalse›€and€that€the€pleas€areÏvoid.€€On€September€30,€the€district€attorney€general€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€At€aÏhearing€on€October€1,€the€trial€judge,€while€agreeing€that€the€stateððs€position€wasÏtechnically€correct,€decided€to€hear€the€testimony€of€the€defense€witnesses€who€wereÍpresent€before€making€a€ruling.€€Petitionerððs€children€testified€that€the€accusationsÏagainst€him€were€false.€€They€stated€that€they€had€accused€their€father€only€becauseÏthey€were€harassed€and€threatened€by€the€police€officer€who€was€investigating€theÏcase.€€Three€letters€the€children€had€written€to€their€father€were€admitted€into€evidence.€ÏPetitioner€testified€that€he€had€never€sexually€abused€either€child.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€ruled€from€the€bench€and€made€a€single€factual€finding.€ÏHe€found€that€the€victimsðð€recantation€was€"basically€incredible€and€unbelievable"€andÏthat€"it€is€not€true€that€they€were€not€molested."€€The€trial€judge€then€denied€the€petitionÏfor€€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€€petitioner€argues€that€his€childrenððs€recantation€of€theirÏaccusations€are€"later„arising€grounds"€for€post„conviction€relief€under€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,Ï845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992)€and€that€his€failure€to€raise€the€issue€earlier€was€theÏresult€of€circumstances€amounting€to€justifiable€excuse€or€neglect.€€He€no€longerÏcontends€that€habeas€corpus€relief€is€appropriate€in€these€circumstances.€€The€stateÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€a€hearing€before€dismissing€the€petition,Ïthat€the€recantation€of€a€witness,€without€more,€does€not€create€grounds€forÏchallenging€a€conviction,€and€that€the€facts€in€this€case€do€not€fall€within€the€narrowÏexceptions€to€the€application€of€the€three„year€time€limit€prescribed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102.€€ÌÌà àMost€of€these€issues€are€moot.€€The€petition€was€filed€in€DavidsonÏCounty,€the€court€nearest€to€petitionerððs€place€of€incarceration,€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ððÏ29„21„205.× ƒ. ××  ×€€A€post„conviction€petition€must€be€filed€in€the€court€where€the€convictionsÏwere€entered.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„103(a)€(Supp.€1994)€(repealed€1995).€€WilliamsonÏCounty€Circuit€Court€must€hear€any€post„conviction€petition€in€this€case.€€In€thisÏinstance,€the€trial€court€in€Davidson€County€lacked€statutory€authority€to€consider€aÏpost„conviction€petition.€€A€habeas€corpus€petition€was€filed€and€a€habeas€corpusÏpetition€was€denied.ÌÌà àHabeas€corpus€relief€in€Tennessee€is€very€limited.€€It€is€available€onlyÏwhen€it€appears€upon€the€face€of€the€judgment€or€the€record€of€the€proceedings€that€aÏconvicting€court€is€without€jurisdiction€or€authority€to€sentence€a€defendant€or€that€aÏdefendantððs€sentence€has€expired.€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„21„101€(1980€Repl.);€òòArcher€v.€Stateóó,Ï851€S.W.2d€157,€164€(Tenn.€1993).€€Unlike€post„conviction€relief,€a€proper€petition€forÏa€writ€of€habeas€corpus€may€be€brought€at€any€time€while€the€petitioner€is€incarcerated.€ÏòòId.óó€€The€petition€in€this€case€alleges€only€that,€upon€the€introduction€of€further€proof€andÏappropriate€findings€by€the€trial€court,€petitionerððs€convictions€may€be€voided.€ÏPetitionerððs€1985€convictions€are€not€void€on€their€face.€€They€are€merely€voidable€andÏmay€not€be€challenged€except€by€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòId.óó€ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€a€trial€court€may€only€treat€a€suit€for€habeas€corpus€as€a€suitÏfor€post„conviction€relief€if€the€remedy€is€adequate€and€appropriate€under€theÏcircumstances€of€the€case.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„108€(1990€Repl.)€(repealed€1995).€€In€thisÏcase,€the€trial€judge€made€no€findings€concerning€the€availability€of€post„convictionÏrelief.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€record,€however,€is€clear.€€Petitioner€pled€guilty€on€March€11,€1985.€€NoÏdirect€appeal€was€filed.€€The€statutory€period€for€filing€post„conviction€petitions€in€suchÏcases€expired€on€July€1,€1989.€€òòSeeóó€òòAbston€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€487,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988).€€The€1993€petition€was€filed€nearly€four€years€after€the€statute€had€run.€€InÏaddition,€the€record€shows€that€petitioner€had€notice€of€the€alleged€grounds€for€reliefÏbefore€July€1,€1989.€€Petitioner€testified€that€he€had€a€telephone€conversation€with€hisÏdaughter€in€1987€in€which€she€apologized€to€him€for€making€false€statements€to€theÏpolice.€€The€record€also€contains€his€daughterððs€letter€dated€April€4,€1987.€€In€that€letter,Ïshe€states€that€she€is€"sorry€for€lying€on€you."€€The€letter€from€his€son€is€dated€June€28,Ï1989.€€Petitioner€had€notice€of€these€grounds€for€relief€and€could€have€raised€themÏprior€to€the€expiration€of€the€statutory€period.€€There€were€no€"later„arising€grounds"€forÏthe€trial€court€to€consider.€€Post„conviction€procedures€would€not€provide€any€effectiveÏrelief,€and€transferring€the€petition€to€Willliamson€County€would€have€been€an€emptyÏgesture.€€The€trial€court€properly€dismissed€the€petition€without€considering€it€as€one€forÏpost„conviction€relief.Ìà àÌà àA€trial€judge€may€properly€dismiss€a€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpusÏwithout€an€evidentiary€hearing€if€the€facts€alleged€in€the€petition,€even€if€true,€would€notÏserve€as€a€basis€for€relief.€€òòCarroll€v.€Raneyóó,€868€S.W.2d€721,€723€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983).€€Although€the€dismissal€of€this€petition€without€an€evidentiary€hearing€wouldÏhave€been€proper,€the€trial€judge€held€a€brief€hearing.€€The€record€in€this€caseÏdiscloses€that€the€trial€judge€was€considering€whether€petitionerððs€counsel€should€beÏgranted€a€continuance€so€that€he€could€make€an€adequate€response€to€the€stateððsÏmotion€to€dismiss€the€petition€without€a€hearing.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Because€the€witnesses€wereÏpresent,€the€trial€judge€decided€to€hear€the€testimony.€€The€record€indicates€that€if€theÏtrial€judge€found€the€testimony€sufficiently€credible€to€justify€further€briefing€andÏargument,€he€would€have€given€defense€counsel€the€opportunity€to€respond€more€fully.€ÏHowever,€after€listening€to€the€two€victims,€the€trial€judge€found€their€testimonyÏcompletely€incredible.€€No€amount€of€legal€research€and€argument€would€change€theÏfactual€result,€and€further€action€would€be€superfluous.€€The€record€supports€both€theÏtrial€judgeððs€factual€finding€and€his€decision€to€dismiss€the€petition€forthwith.€€ÌÌà àThe€petition€did€not€allege€facts€that€would€afford€habeas€corpus€relief,Ïand€under€the€circumstances,€post„conviction€relief€was€neither€adequate€norÏappropriate.€€The€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus€isÏaffirmed.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à(Tipton,€Welles,€JJ.)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Special€Judge€Bevil€not€participating)ÌÌà àÌÌà à