WPC M;LMf) 05 % QN;{ƐEI;.K;{pg?"&YY5Ҁ5pC$ϒ\;^||U uMm@=LY"i]K +no43LjdC? å9>2?@h`dA FwX9~0l5>ܺ 꺀̧5dA5o%h taQUԶ-j=fg *V+^I\v鍫mż|J X<7G`GJbr&-N56~ nkLyGq+~0rMsܚ$Qc/DWro(֪eS;{!ܚ?Q f˔tRQR #NEb 0 B 0 D3R D- 0K ASP 0 0D AA)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularsp'i3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU  R$      2  w  _Fromourreviewoftherecord,itappearsthatthispostconvictionpetitionmayhavebeenthesecondonefiled  inthiscase.Inthedefendantsinmateaffidavitattachedtohispetition,hestatesthathefiledapostconvictionpetition n intheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourtincasenumber89F1537.TheDavidsonCountypetitionwasdismissedas ,| timebarred.Thatpetitionwasseekingreliefapparentlyalleginghisnotreceivingcreditfortimeservedfollowingthe : revocationhearing.IftheLauderdaleCountypetitionwasthesecondonefiledinthiscase,thistrialcourt,when  consideringthepetitionasoneforpostconvictionrelief,couldhavedismissedthepetitionpursuanttoTennesseeCode f Annotated4030202(c),whichstates, Thispartcontemplatesthefilingofonlyone(1)petitionforpostconviction $ t relief.Innoeventmaymorethanone(1)petitionforpostconvictionreliefbefiledattackingasinglejudgment.(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60  R$      1  w  _Inhispetition,_Livingston_Ԁstatesthatthisisthesecondpetitionforwritofhabeascorpus,thefirsthavingbeen  dismissedbytheLauderdaleCountyCircuitCourtonFebruary10,1999.Ourresearchrevealsthedismissalofa n petitionforhabeascorpusbytheLauderdaleCountyCircuitCourt,whichactionwasaffirmedbythiscourtonOctober ,| 19,1999._Jerrell_Ԁ_Livingston_Ԁv.State,No.02C019903CC00084,1999WL1095614(Tenn.Crim.App.Oct.19, : 1999),perm.app.denied,(Tenn.2000).Weassumethisisthesamepetitionasthatreferredtobythepetitionerand  inthecourtorderdenyinghispetition. - -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  w d(|3s$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3s$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     __   8sXXdd8@tt9INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#9#Ԉ      @  @` July2000Session @ XsX #XXs#_JERREL_Ԁ_LIVINGSTON_Ԁv.JAMESM.DUKES,WardenXsX  4 @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLauderdaleCounty  ( @@No.5341JosephH.Walker,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<o` A p  @@TTNo.W200000840CCAR3CDDecidedAugust22,_2000_ e  AV) ` dE<0` A 1     Thisappealresultsfromthetrialcourt'sdenialofthepetitioner'spetitionforwritofhabeascorpus &v  basedonthefactthatthechallengedjudgmentwasnotinvalidonitsface,norhadthepetitioner's  \ sentenceexpired.Thecourtalsoconsideredthisrequestasapetitionforpostconvictionreliefbut B dismissedthepetitionforlackofjurisdiction.Baseduponourreviewoftherecord,weaffirmthe ( trialcourt'sdismissalofthepetitioner'srequestforhabeascorpusorpostconvictionrelief.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     #Xs#XsX.AlanE.Glenn,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Welles,J.,andCornelia V A.Clark,_Sp.J._,joined. < _Jerrel_Ԁ_Livingston_,_Henning_,Tennessee,ProSe. X PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;andMarkE.Davidson,AssistantAttorney $ General;fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.   @@OO& OPINION #XXs #XsX    #XXs #  XsX  Procedurally,thiscaseismadeconfusingbecauseofthepetitionersmultiplefilingsofpost R"" guiltypleapetitionsinLauderdaleCounty,whereheisincarcerated,andDavidsonCounty,where 8## hepledguiltyandwherehisprobationwasrevoked. $n$   ThepetitionerfiledaprosepetitionforwritofhabeascorpusintheLauderdaleCounty %:!& Clerk'sOfficeonMarch16,2000.  #  1      ׀Therequestforthewritwasbasedonthepetitioner'sclaimthat & "' theattorneywhorepresentedhimathisprobationrevocationhearinginDavidsonCountywas '#(  _ineffective,thatthetrialcourtcommittedplainerrorinrevokinghisprobation,andthathewas  deniedtherighttoappealtherevocationofhisprobation.Therecordprovidedtousdoesnotcontain  thewarrantfromtheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourt,atranscriptofthehearing,orthecourtorder | revokingprobation. b   ThisappealresultedafterthepetitionerchallengedtheDavidsonCountycourtsdecisionvia . ~ thishabeascorpuspetitionfiledinLauderdaleCounty.TheLauderdaleCountycourtdismissedthe  d habeaspetition,whichitalsotreatedasapostconvictionpetition,becausethecourtfoundthatthe  J petitionerhadnotallegedgroundsthatwouldentitlehimtohabeascorpusrelief,andtheLauderdale  0 Countycourt,notbeingtheconvictingcourt,lackedjurisdictiontograntpostconvictionrelief.The    petitionerappealedthecourtsdenialofhispetitiontothiscourt.      Althoughthepetitionerstatesonlyoneissueonappeal,heactuallyraisesthreeissuesinhis x  brief:(1)whetherthelowercourterredindenyinghiswritofhabeascorpuswithoutaproper ^  findingoffactsand/ordeterminationastowhethertheclaimswerevalid;(2)whetherthelowercourt D  [DavidsonCounty]committedplainerrorinallowingthedistrictattorneytobringupgroundsnot *z  allegedintheprobationviolationwarrant;and(3)whetherhewasdeniedhisrighttoappealthat ` revocation.Baseduponourreview,weconcludethatthetrialcourtproperlydismissedthe F petitioner'srequestforreliefandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. , @& ANALYSIS   @) I.  t @GG  HabeasCorpusRelief  @   ItiswellestablishedinTennesseethattheremedyprovidedbyawritofhabeascorpusis  \ limitedinscopeandmayonlybeinvokedwherethejudgmentisvoidorthepetitionerstermof B imprisonmenthasexpired.Statev.Richie,20S.W.3d624,629(Tenn.2000);Statev.Davenport, ( 980S.W.2d407,409(Tenn.Crim.App.1998);Passarellav.State,891S.W.2d619,626(Tenn.  Crim.App.),perm.app.denied,(Tenn.1994).Avoid,asopposedtoavoidable,judgmenthasbeen  definedbyoursupremecourtas oneinwhichthejudgmentisfaciallyinvalidbecausethecourtdid   nothavethestatutoryauthoritytorendersuchjudgment.Dykesv.Compton,978S.W.2d528,529 p!  (Tenn.1998);seealsoTaylorv.State,995S.W.2d78,83(Tenn.1999).Thejudgmentofacourt V"! ofgeneraljurisdictionisconclusiveandpresumedtobevalid,andsuchajudgmentcanonlybe <#" impeachediftherecordaffirmativelyshowsthattherenderingcourtwaswithoutpersonalorsubject "$r# matterjurisdiction.Archerv.State,851S.W.2d157,162(Tenn.1993);Passarella,891S.W.2dat %X $ 626.Thus,habeascorpusreliefisavailableonlywhen itappearsuponthefaceofthejudgment %>!% ortherecordoftheproceedingsuponwhichthejudgmentisrenderedthataconvictingcourtwas &$"& withoutjurisdictionorauthoritytosentenceadefendant,orthatadefendantssentenceof ' #' imprisonment...hasexpired.Archer,851S.W.2dat164(citationomitted). (#(   Toobtainhabeascorpusrelief,thepetitionermustshowbyapreponderanceoftheevidence l*%* thathissentenceisvoidandnotmerelyvoidable.SeeDavenport,980S.W.2dat409;Passarella, R+&+ 891S.W.2dat627.Consequently,apetitionercannotcollaterallyattackafaciallyvalidjudgment 8,', ofthetrialcourtinapetitionforhabeascorpusrelief.Archer,851S.W.2dat162.Theproper  meansofchallengingafaciallyjudgmentbasedonaconstitutionalviolationisapetitionforpost  convictionrelief.Lewisv.Metro.Gen.SessionsCourtforNashville,949S.W.2d696,699(Tenn. | Crim.App.1996),perm.app.denied,(Tenn.1997);Fredrickv.State,906S.W.2d927,929(Tenn. b Crim.App.1993).Furthermore,anallegationofineffectiveassistanceofcounselmerelyrenders H ajudgmentvoidableandnotvoid.Passarella,891S.W.2dat627. . ~   Inthepresentcase,thepetitionerischallenginghisprobationrevocationonconstitutional  J groundsandtrialcourterror,ratherthanbaseduponthefactthatthecourtwaswithoutjurisdiction  0 torevokehisprobationorthathissentencehadexpired.Thereisnothingintherecordbeforeusthat    wouldcauseustoquestionthejurisdictionoftheDavidsonCountycourttorevokethepetitioners    probationorthestatusofthepetitioner'ssentence.Therefore,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtwasnot   subjecttohabeascorpusrelief.Thepetitionerfailedtocarryhisburdenofshowingthattheorder x  ofrevocationwasinvalidonitsface,andthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed. ^  @) II. *z  @//PostConvictionRelief `    Afterfindingthatahabeascorpuspetitionwasnottheappropriatevehicleforthepetitioner's , claims,thetrialcourtconsideredthepetitionasarequestforpostconvictionrelief.   #  2      ׀Becausethis  prosepetitionwasfiledafterMarch26,1996,itisgovernedbythe1995PostConvictionProcedure  Act.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030201et.seq.(1997)(CompilersNotes);1995Tenn.Pub.Actsch.  207,3.TennesseeCodeAnnotated4030203allowsvoidorvoidablejudgmentstobe t challengedonconstitutionalgroundsusingthepostconvictionprocedure. Z   OnMarch23,2000,thecourtdismissedthepetitionpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated &v 4030103(a).Thatsectionofthestatutewasrepealedin1995.Itwasreplacedby4030204(a),  \ whichstatesthat [a]postconvictionproceedingiscommencedbyfiling,withtheclerkofthecourt B  inwhichtheconvictionoccurred ,awrittenpetitionnamingthestateastherespondent.(emphasis ( added).SincethepetitionerwasconvictedinDavidsonCounty,theLauderdaleCountycourtfound  thatitlackedjurisdictiontohearthepetition.    Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdecision.TennesseeCodeAnnotated4030206(1997) p!  states: V"!   <#" 8  8`   (b)Ifitplainlyappearsfromthefaceofthepetition,anyannexed   exhibitsorthepriorproceedingsinthecasethatthepetitionwasnot  filedin thecourtofconviction orwithinthetimesetforthinthe | statuteoflimitations,orthatapriorpetitionwasfiledattackingthe b convictionandwasresolvedonthemerits, thejudgeshallenteran H orderdismissingthepetition .(emphasisadded).. ~` x` x Pursuanttothestatute,theLauderdaleCountycourtwasrequiredtodismissthepetitionerspost  J convictionpetitionandproperlydidso.We,therefore,affirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.  0 @FF% CONCLUSION       Baseduponourreview,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. x     `     h     ___________________________________ F    `     h     ALANE.GLENN,JUDGE