WPC' U:V % 0w@r 4   0  0D 0JA 0T 0^ 0h= 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d BU *B)DC AM5(!zv~v D3% 0@& AOW&& 0Dl' D/' B',cAZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  67P8E9:E;<E=> e?Ӏԡ ppp3|xH((3k$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7٪XXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd-"C << G  !  #d#     ! \RA'\#d#       YYY FILED XMay16,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#      \RA'\#d#    \RA'\7٪XXdd7     Tenn.CodeAnn.4035211provides,inpertinentpart:8 "Infixingasentenceforafelonyormisdemeanor,thecourtshallimposeaspecificsentencelengthforeachoffense.8 (1)Specificsentencesforafelonyshallbeforatermofyearsormonthsorlife,ifthedefendantissentencedtothedepartmentofcorrection....Thereshallbenoindeterminatesentences.Sentencesforallfelonies...shallbedeterminateinnature,andthedefendantshallberesponsiblefortheentiresentence....8   !#d#      \RA'\#d#    \RA'\     Initially,wenotethattheappellantcitestotheCriminalSentencingReformActof1989.ThisactbecameeffectiveonNovember1,1989.Theappellant,however,wassentencedonJuly22,1983.Accordingly,hewassentencedundertheCriminalSentencingReformActof1982.Therefore,hischallengeshouldhavebeenpresentedunderTenn.CodeAnn.4035203(1982)(courttoimposesentence),Tenn.CodeAnn.4035504(1982)(releaseclassificationstatusprograms),andTenn.CodeAnn.4028101etseq.(1982)(probation,parolesandpardons). p !#d#      \RA'\#d#    \RA'\     ArticleIIoftheTennesseeConstitutionprovides:8 Sec.1.DivisionofPowers.ThepowersoftheGovernmentshallbedividedintothreedistinctdepartments:theLegislative,Executive,andJudicial.8 Sec.2.LimitationofPowers.Nopersonorpersonsbelongingtooneofthesedepartmentsshallexerciseanyofthepowersproperlybelongingtoeitheroftheothers,exceptinthecaseshereindirectedorpermitted.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva 'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .       \RA'\#Xd##Xd#   R#$"A1-j|`   `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@ FEBRUARYSESSION,1997 CHARLESMASSENGILL , )     ) No.01C019605CR00191 Appellant   )     ) DAVIDSONCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon. SETHNORMAN ,Judge STATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) (HabeasCorpus) Appellee   )FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: DEANNAC.BELL     CHARLESW.BURSON 211ThirdAvenue,North   AttorneyGeneralandReporterNashville,TN37201       DARYLJ.BRAND       AssistantAttorneyGeneral       CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493                VICTORS.(TORRY)JOHNSONIII       DistrictAttorneyGeneral      JONSEABORG       Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral      WashingtonSquare,Suite500      2222ndAvenue,North      Nashville,TN372011649OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes Judge@  OPINION  Theappellant,CharlesMassengill,appealstheorderoftheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourtdismissinghispetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.OnDecember12,1982,theappellantpledguiltyintheSullivanCountyCriminalCourttoonecountofseconddegreemurderandonecountofgrandlarceny.OnJuly22,1983,thetrialcourtimposedsentencesofthirtyfiveyearsforthemurderconvictionandtenyearsforthegrandlarcenyconviction,torunconsecutively.TheappellantispresentlyconfinedattheRiverbendMaximumSecurityInstitutioninDavidsonCountywhereheisservinganeffectivesentenceoffortyfiveyearsfortheseconvictions.InAugust,1995,theappellantfiledaprosepetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.OnOctober16,1995,withtheaidofappointedcounsel,theappellantfiledanamendedpetition. Thispetitionallegesthattheappellant'ssentencesarevoidbecause8 (1)hissentencesareindeterminateand,thereby,violateTenn.CodeAnn.4035211(1989);and8 (2)hissentencesviolatetheseparationofpowersclauseoftheTennesseeConstitution.OnNovember21,1995,thetrialcourtdismissedthepetitionfindingtheappellant'sallegationstobewithoutmerit.Theappellantappealsthetrialcourt'sruling.@ I.IndeterminateSentences  TheappellantfirstcontendsthatthereleaseeligibilityprovisionsunderTenn.CodeAnn.4035501(1982)createindeterminatesentences,whichareprohibitedbyTenn.CodeAnn.4035211. %   ׀HebasesthisallegationonthediscretionaryauthorityoftheBoardofParolestoeithergrantordenyparole.Thus,heargues,becausethedecisionoftheBoardtograntordenyhimparoleisuncertain,hissentenceisindeterminate. Thefactthatparoleresultsinaninmatebeingreleasedfromconfinementdoesnotresultinterminatingtheoriginalsentenceimposedbythesentencingcourt.Howellv.State,569S.W.2d428,433(Tenn.1978).Paroledoesnotcausethesentencetoexpireorterminate,butismerelyaconditionalreleasefromconfinement.SeeDoylev.Hampton,340S.W.2d891,893(1960);seealsoMerrellv.State,No.01C019604CR00147(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Feb.20,1997).Theappellantconfusestheterms"sentence"and"parole."Indeed,eventhoughreleasedfromconfinement,thedefendantcontinuesinconstructivecustodyuntiltheexpirationofthefulltermofhissentence.Howell,569S.W.2dat433.Thus,thesentenceimposedbythesentencingcourtremainsdeterminate.Asthetrialcourtconcluded,"[t]heparoleboardhasnoauthoritytodeterminethetermofthesentence,butitdoeshavediscretionindecidinghowthatsentencewillbeserved."Thisissueiswithoutmerit. @ II.SeparationofPowers  Next,theappellantallegesthatTenn.CodeAnn.4035601(1992)andTenn.CodeAnn.4035211(1989),establishingaparolesystemforeligibleinmates,violatetheseparationofpowersclauseoftheTennesseeConstitution. &   ׀TheappellantarguesthattheauthorityoftheBoardofParolestograntordenyparoleunconstitutionallyencroachesuponthepowerofthejudiciarytoimposesentences.Specifically,hearguesthatthelegislature,byenactingTenn.CodeAnn.4035601,usurpedthejudiciary'ssentencingpowerandbestoweditupontheParoleBoard,alegislativelycreatedentity. Thedoctrineofseparationofpowers,assetforthinArticleIIoftheTennesseeConstitution,isafundamentalprincipalofAmericanconstitutionalgovernment. '   ׀TownofSouthCarthagev.Barrett,840S.W.2d895,897(Tenn.1992)(citationomitted).Ourconstitutiondividesthepowersofgovernmentintothreedistinct,independent,andcoordinatedepartments,namely,legislative,executive,andjudicial,withexpressprohibitionagainstanyencroachmentbyonedepartmentuponthepowers,functions,andprerogativesoftheothers,exceptasdirectedorpermittedbysomeotherprovisionoftheconstitution.Richardsonv.Young,122Tenn.471,491,125S.W.664,668(1910).Whileitistheprovinceanddutyofthejudicialdepartmenttointerpretthelaw,itisequallytheexclusiveprovinceofthelegislaturetoformulatepolices,mandateprograms,andtoestablishtheirrelativepriority,and,oncethelegislature,exercisingitsdelegatedpowers,hasdecidedthepolicyinagivenarea,itisfortheexecutivedepartmenttoadministerthelawsandforthecourtstoenforcethemwhenenforcementissought.TennesseeValleyAuthorityv.Hill,437U.S.153,194,98S.Ct.2279,230102(1978);seealsoRichardsonv.Young,122Tenn.at493,125S.W.at668. Thesettingofpunishmentisalegislativefunction.SeeLavonv.State,586S.W.2d112(Tenn.1979);Sandfordv.Pearson,231S.W.2d336(Tenn.1950).Inherentwithinthelegislature'sfunctiontoestablishpunishmentisitsauthoritytopromulgatelawsdevisingandestablishingastatutoryschemeofparole.Alsowithinthelegislature'sauthorityistheabilitytocreateanadministrativeagencytooverseeandimplementtheexpressedpolicyandprogramofthestatutespertainingtoparole.Cf.Statev.Edwards,572S.W.2d917,919(Tenn.1978). TheauthoritytograntparoletoeligibleinmatesrestswiththeBoardofParoles,anagencyoftheexecutivebranch.Tenn.CodeAnn.4028103,106.Asestablishedbyourlegislature,theauthoritytograntparolesisnotjudicialinnature,butisadministrative.Woodsv.State,130Tenn.100,114,169S.W.558,560(1914).Theadministrationoftheparolesystemisneitherpurelyjudicial,legislative,norexecutive,butrather,belongs"tothegreatresiduumofgovernmentalauthority,thepolicepower,tobemadeeffective,asisoftenthecase,throughadministrativeagencies."Id.Assuch,thelawsregardingsentencingandparolesdonotunconstitutionallyconferjudicialpowersuponexecutiveofficers.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.0 @ III.Conclusion  InTennessee,habeascorpusreliefisonlyavailablewhenaconvictionisvoidbecausetheconvictingcourtwaswithoutjurisdictionorauthoritytosentenceadefendant,orthatadefendant'ssentencehasexpiredandheisbeingillegallyrestrained.Archerv.State,851S.W.2d157,164(Tenn.1993).Inthepresentcase,theappellant'sallegations,eveniftrue,wouldnotrenderhisconvictionsvoid,butmerelyvoidable.Theappellanthasfailedtoestablishthatthesentencingcourtwaswithoutjurisdictionorauthoritytosentencetheappellant,noristhereanyproofthathissentencehasexpired.Accordingly,weconcludethatthepetitionforawritofhabeascorpuswasproperlydismissed.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.      ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeCONCUR:_______________________________GARYR.WADE,Judge_______________________________J.CURWOODWITT,JR.,Judge