ÿWPCf ×´ ($î]°¦+†Ê?·|v+ˆzœ¤å ÄQ8d^½ 9eŽû~°ÏkÒ:V·úLÒ£šk¦ü®Lì³SÝ ‡õmŽ##0š¸6ELœ»ÁmsH s¢k/üºzñ|ŽŠE‰Èi†zXg„Ò…ãUzé&ûU<}üB.³£“^©Èu:™ì%ÁúfYºåƒò-@w‘D Á#tØf·e»é°¶úû†Ûl hóãqqXr=gÃÇÆwl#S¢h JyOé£ç§Dq{@1š_'qûˆr r÷°Î”ÙåÊ¿†XZŽq%`ň­×CûÁr}CŽvׇ/9)ü°Åì˜×þJ3Ý5Ÿ•÷Ï]ɽΆ’W;Ébî%ܯ˜×g‰ßjÆ_"C £¤#´ÔISïùE›çæly '`¹ì)ù8äœN\h:`U~¦Cb¶:õNöÇ½Ó bƒº¬~0P„í¿Æ]ÑdYþXK'%)EÑëý]c@_ëb#‹“{÷Ê;åBЄŒ* uPSÙóÛ·óþ/5LÑž19Zä}³—=` /KÒCü¢ ÂHŸfwk‰‰Rê`nóô¬B¦7$Õþ"²8å¹’«þS\£ÚyýËmÍtÞ*# LU>W %• 0í›UBˆ4ÊÞn­íU:šfÔ:"Bw@d 0¤ 0A 0‡Þ 0Ëe 0—0 0ƒÇ )J U:s U:­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ AQç Æ8 0Dþ 0DB 0D†† D/Ê Bù B D33˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiWj‰%3|xÇ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ³´Dµ¶U·D¸U¹DºD»¼Ó€H0%ÿÿ4heading 1heading 1Ô&  ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò òó óÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'  ÔH0%ÿÿ4heading 2heading 2Ô&  ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò òó óÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'  ÔP!ÿÿ8Body Text 2Body Text 2Ó  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<;Tÿÿ.headerheaderÓ  ÓÓ°°ÀÐ (#ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>Ó`!ÿÿ:Body Text InBody Text Indent 2Ó  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔL!ÿÿ6Block TextBlock TextÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XìçXXXÔÔ€Þ4XXìçÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XìçXÞ4ÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€10,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôQ©ôXXìçÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó, øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ËÉXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XìçXXXÔÑ7€ ìç XXdæXXdÈ7Ññ¼ñœßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrß›ñ¼ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@~~%DàAT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€NOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓBARRY€WINFRED€RITCHIE,à À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellant,à h àà À à)à  àNo.€03C01„9601„CC„00029Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Bledsoe€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Honorable€James€Curtis€Smith,€Judge€€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€à À à)à  à€(Habeas€Corpus€„„€aggravated€rape€andÐ h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€€€€armed€robbery)Ìà ¸ àAppellee.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌBarry€Winfred€Ritchie,€òòProóó€òòSeóóà À àà  àCharles€W.€BursonÐ ²ª ÐSTSRCF,€Rte.€4,€Box€600à h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐPikeville,€TN€37367„9243à h àà À àà  àandà p àà È àà  àà x àÐ ~v М(AT€TRIAL)›à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àEugene€J.€HoneaÐ d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà Ð àà (# àÐ 0 ( МLarry€G.€Roddy›à  àà h àà À àà  àœNashville,›€TN€37243„0493Ð ! М723€McCallie€Avenue›ÌœChattanooga,€TN€37403„0016›à À àà  àœJames›€Michael€TaylorÐ â"Ú М(ON€APPEAL)›à  àà h àà À àà  àœDistrict›€Attorney€GeneralÐ È#À  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à265€Third€Avenue,€Suite€300Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDayton,€TN€37321ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639S Ðà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌÌÌÓ*X°¸ ˜X°X` ˜X*ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÓ*°°ÀÐ (#X°¸ ˜X*ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÓÓÝ‚ÿÿÿ3ƒÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ*X°¸ ˜X°°ÀÐ (#*ÓÝ  ÝÔ€XPXX XìçÔà ¸ àThe€petitioner,€Barry€Winfred€Ritchie,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€denial€ofÐ ¦ ž Ðhis€petition€for€habeas€corpus€relief€by€the€Bledsoe€County€Circuit€Court€without€aÏhearing.€€The€petitioner€is€presently€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€CorrectionÏserving€an€effective€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€for€his€1981€convictions€forÏaggravated€rape€and€armed€robbery.€€On€appeal,€the€petitioner€contends€that€hisÏconvictions€are€void€because€the€convicting€court€lacked€the€proper€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€to€try€him.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€contends€that€(1)€the€issue€of€subjectÏmatter€jurisdiction€can€be€properly€raised€by€a€petition€for€habeas€corpus,€(2)€theÏconvicting€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€crimes,€and€(3)€the€State€ofÏTennessee€ceded€jurisdiction€over€the€lands€where€the€crimes€were€committed€to€theÏfederal€government.€€We€reverse€and€remand€the€case€for€the€trial€court€to€hold€anÏevidentiary€hearing€to€make€findings€of€fact€and€rulings€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€and€James€William€Massengale€were€jointly€tried€andÏconvicted€in€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€for€aggravated€rape€and€armedÏrobbery.€€Each€received€sentences€of€life€imprisonment€and€ten€years.€€On€appeal,€thisÏcourt€affirmed€the€convictions.€€òòState€v.€James€William€Massengale€&€Barry€WinfredÐ ¦(ž!$ ÐRitchieóó,€No.€780,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€1,€1983),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ð †*~#& ÐJune€27,€1983).€€The€petitioner€and€Massengale€separately€filed€petitions€for€post„¼conviction€relief€that€were€denied.€€òòState€v.€James€William€Massengaleóó,€No.€922,Ð F.>'* ÐHamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€6,€1987),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Dec.€12,€1988);Ð &0), ÐòòBarry€Winfred€Ritchie€v.€Stateóó,€No.€946,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€July€23,Ð 2þ*. Ð1986),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Sept.€29,€1986).Ð æ3Þ,0 Ðâ âÐ Æ5¾.2 Ðà ¸ àIn€his€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€habeas€corpus,€the€petitioner€does€not€disputeÐ  Ðâ âthat€the€crimes€took€place€but€rather€argues€that€the€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€tryÏand€convict€him.€€The€petition€alleges€that€the€crimes€took€place€on€the€property€of€theÏTennessee€Valley€Authority€and€that€the€federal€courts€have€exclusive€jurisdiction€overÏany€offenses€committed€on€the€property.€€The€petitioner€submitted€the€followingÏsupplemental€documents:€(1)€a€map€placing€the€offenses€on€a€tract€of€land€designatedÏas€CR€1418,€(2)€a€set€of€deeds€conveying€the€tract€to€the€United€States,€specifically€theÏTennessee€Valley€Authority€(TVA),€in€fee€simple€on€May€2,€1938,€and€(3)€an€easementÏassigning€all€ð ðrights,€privileges,€and€powersðð€over€the€tract€from€Hamilton€County,ÏTennessee,€to€the€City€of€Chattanooga€on€March€5,€1992.€€The€petitioner€alsoÏsubmitted€documentation€that€a€map€showing€the€metes€and€bounds€of€the€propertyÏwas€filed€with€the€Hamilton€County€clerkððs€office€on€May€2,€1938.€€The€evidence€fromÏthe€original€trial€showed€that€the€crimes€were€committed€in€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€atÏa€park€along€the€bank€of€the€Tennessee€River€south€of€the€œChickamauga›€Dam,€on€theÏsame€side€of€the€river€as€the€Amnicola€Highway,€and€immediately€behind€ChattanoogaÏState€University.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€habeas€corpus€petition€without€a€hearing,Ïrelying€upon€òòMassengale€v.€Millsóó,€826€S.W.2d€122,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€InÐ È(À!$ ÐòòMassengaleóó,€the€petition€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€alleged€that€the€Hamilton€CountyÐ ¨* #& ÐCriminal€Court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€try€and€convict€Massengale€becauseÏthe€land€where€the€crimes€had€occurred€had€been€ceded€to€the€federal€government€andÏthe€federal€government€held€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€the€land.€€The€petition€wasÏdenied€on€the€grounds€that€(1)€Massengale€failed€to€show€that€the€federal€governmentÏhad€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€the€crimes€and€(2)€the€issue€of€whether€the€crimesÏoccurred€on€property€within€the€exclusive€jurisdiction€of€the€United€States€should€haveÏbeen€raised€in€the€trial€court€and€could€not€be€raised€by€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€€ThisÐ È7À04 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ñcourt€affirmed€the€denial€of€habeas€corpus€relief,€holding€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏdetermined€that€it€had€venue€at€the€convicting€trial.€€òòIdóó.€€This€court€stated€that€it€foundÐ èà Ðð ðnothing€to€indicate€that€Congress€intended€for€the€United€States€courts€to€haveÏexclusive€jurisdiction€over€matters€arising€on€Tennessee€Valley€Authority€property.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð ¨   ÐÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& À ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò òÝ  ÝÔ  ÔI.Ô ª!Ôó óÐ h`  ÐÝ‚ÿ\!triaÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'Àhl!ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà ¸ àFirst,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€issue€of€subject€matter€jurisdictionÏcan€be€raised€by€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€€He€argues€that€this€courtÏerroneously€held€in€òòMassengaleóó€that€the€issue€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€cannot€beÐ  Ðraised€in€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€€The€state€responds€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€dismissed€the€petition€because€the€petitioner€cannot€prove€his€assertionsÏwithout€resorting€to€the€introduction€of€further€proof€after€findings€of€fact€by€the€trialÏcourt,€and€thus,€the€petitionerððs€convictions€are€not€void,€but€merely€voidable.€€WeÏconclude€that€a€claim€of€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€is€cognizable€in€a€habeasÏcorpus€proceeding.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€constitutional€right€to€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€is€available€to€allÏcitizens€imprisoned€or€restrained€of€their€liberty€for€whatever€reason,€absent€theÏlegislature€suspending€the€right€in€the€case€of€rebellion€or€invasion.€€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,Ïðð€15.€€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„21„101,€a€person€imprisoned€or€restrained€of€his€or€herÏliberty€is€entitled€to€seek€the€aid€of€the€courts€in€inquiring€into€the€reason€for€theÏimprisonment€or€restraint.€€Also,€the€courts€are€obliged€to€issue€a€writ€in€appropriateÏcases€in€order€that€further€inquiry€may€be€made€if€necessary.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðððð€29„21„108,Ð H0@), Є110.€€Issues€of€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€may€be€raised€at€any€time,€even€onÏappeal€when€not€raised€in€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(2);€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð 4-0 Ðâ âòòState€v.€Seagravesóó,€837€S.W.2d€615,€616€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(pursuant€to€RuleÐ è5à.2 Ð13(b),€T.R.A.P.,€appellate€courts€have€the€duty€to€review€the€subject€matter€jurisdictionÏof€the€convicting€court€even€if€it€is€not€raised€as€an€issue€on€appeal).Ìâ âÌà ¸ àHabeas€corpus€relief€is€available€if€the€judgment€is€void€or€if€a€prisoner€isÏbeing€held€in€custody€after€his€term€of€imprisonment€has€expired.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€ex€rel.€HallÐ ˆ€ Ðv.€Meadowsóó,€389€S.W.2d€256,€259€(Tenn.€1965);€òòState€ex€rel.€Holbrook€v.€Bomaróó,€364Ð h`  ÐS.W.2d€887,€888€(Tenn.€1963).€€In€òòHolbrookóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€œCourt›€held€asÐ H@  Ðfollows:ÌÓÓÓ  ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà8 ¸ àœUpon€a›€collateral€attack€on€a€judgment€of€a€court€ofÏgeneral€jurisdiction€made€by€the€parties€or€their€privies,Ïsuch€judgment€is€presumed€to€be€in€all€respects€regularÏand€valid,€unless€the€record€affirmatively€shows€that€theÏcourt€rendering€the€judgment€lacked€jurisdiction€of€theÏsubject€matter€or€of€the€person;€such€presumption€isÏconclusive€œunless€it€is›€impeached€by€the€record€itself.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÝ‚ÿÿÿ{+ƒÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÓK1°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%X°¸ ˜XKÓòòÌÓ  ÓÓÓœIdóó.€at€889.›Ð ˆ€ ÐÌÓ$„¸ ‹X°°ŽX$Óà ¸ àIn€òòArcher€v.€Stateóó,€851€S.W.2d€157,€164€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supreme€courtÐ H!@ Ðstated€that€habeas€corpus€relief€is€available€only€when€it€appears€on€the€face€of€theÏjudgment€or€the€record€of€the€proceedings€that€the€convicting€court€was€withoutÏjurisdiction€or€authority€to€sentence€the€defendant.€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€denied€the€petitioner€Ð è&à" Ðhabeas€corpus€relief,€holding€that€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€his€guilty€pleas€were€notÏentered€knowingly,€voluntarily,€and€understandingly€œrenderedñºñ€the›€ñºññ»ñ€ñ»ñhis›€convictions€merelyÏvoidable,€not€void.ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€unlike€the€example€in€òòArcheróó,€if€a€court€has€no€jurisdiction€overÐ H0@), Ðthe€subject€matter€of€the€criminal€conviction,€the€defendantððs€conviction€in€that€court€isÏvoid.€€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€451€S.W.2d€707,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969).€€ð ðIf€the€œCourt›Ð 4-0 Ðrendering€a€œjudgment›€sought€to€be€œattacked€collaterally€is›€œone›€of€general€jurisdiction,Ïthere€is€a€presumption€that€nothing€shall€be€intended€to€be€out€of€its€jurisdiction€exceptÐ È7À04 Ðthat€which€so€appears€upon€the€face€of€the€judgment€or€in€the€record€of€the€case€inÏwhich€œthat›€judgment€is€rendered.ðð€€òòBomar€v.€State€ex€rel.€Stewartóó,€300€S.W.2d€885,€887Ð èà Ð(Tenn.€1957).€€œð ðOn›€collateral€attack€œupon›€a€judgment€or€decree€of€a€court€of€generalÏjurisdiction€by€parties€or€privies€œthereto,›€the€rule€is€that€such€judgment€or€decree€cannotÏbe€œquestioned›€except€for€want€of€authority€over€the€œmatters›€adjudicated€œupon;›€and€œthis›Ïwant€of€authority€must€be€found€in€the€record€itself.ðð€€òòWilkins€v.€McCorkleóó,€80€S.W.€834,Ð h`  Ð838€(Tenn.€1904).ÌÌà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€witnesses€in€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€CourtÏidentified€the€specific€area€where€the€events€of€the€crimes€took€place.€€Three€separateÏwitnesses€identified€the€area€along€the€bank€of€the€Tennessee€River€south€of€theÏœChickamauga›€Dam,€on€the€same€side€of€the€river€as€the€Amnicola€Highway,€andÏimmediately€behind€Chattanooga€State€University.€€The€location€of€the€crimes€isÏaffirmatively€stated€in€the€trial€record.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€record€shows€where€the€events€occurred,€but€it€does€not€provide€theÏstatus€of€ownership€of€the€land.€€Because€the€crimes€occurred€in€Hamilton€County,€onÏland€open€to€the€public,€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€must€have€presumed€that€itÏhad€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€any€crimes€occurring€there.€ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€when€a€person€is€indicted€for€a€crime€in€a€court€that€lacksÏsubject€matter€jurisdiction,€that€indictment€is€void.€€If€the€indictment€is€void,€then€noÏaction€by€the€trial€court€can€obtain€jurisdiction€not€granted€to€it€by€the€legislature.€€Also,Ïthe€issue€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€is€not€waivable€by€the€parties.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð (2 +. ÐCrim.€P.€12(b)(2);€òòSeagravesóó,€œ837€S.W.2d€at›€618.€€Thus,€if€subject€matter€jurisdictionÐ 4-0 Ðcannot€be€assumed€or€waived,€any€judgment€by€the€trial€court€is€necessarily€void.€ÏThere€is€no€action€over€time€that€can€change€a€void€judgment.Ð È7À04 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[¬ AØ'ÿ Legal[¬ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ñœñ¹ññ¸ñÌñ¸ññ¹ñ›à ¸ àIn€this€case,€if€the€record€shows€that€the€events€occurred€on€land€ceded€toÐ  Ðthe€United€States,€and€the€United€States€held€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€the€land,€thenÏthe€conviction€by€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€would€be€void€for€want€of€subjectÏmatter€jurisdiction.€€Therefore,€following€the€holdings€of€the€Tennessee€courts€in€òòArcheróóÐ ¨   Ðand€òòBomaróó,€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€is€a€proper€vehicle€for€addressing€thisÐ ˆ€ Ðmatter.ÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ& À ÔÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò òÝ  ÝÔ  ÔII.Ô ñ@Ôó óÐ H@  ÐÝ‚ÿ£@n€òÝœñ¹ñó óñ¹ñÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ'ÀH³@Ôñ¸ñó óñ¸ñ›Ý  ÝÓ  Óà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€didÏnot€properly€determine€that€it€had€subject€matter€jurisdiction€at€the€1981€trial.€€TheÏpetitioner€asserts€that€the€only€reference€made€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court€was€anÏidentification€of€the€location€of€the€crimes€by€the€trial€judge€during€jury€selection.€€TheÏstate€argues€that€there€was€a€proper€finding€of€venue€by€the€trial€court€and€that€venue€isÏa€finding€of€fact€that€may€not€be€disturbed€in€a€habeas€corpus€proceeding.€€WeÏconclude€that€a€finding€as€to€the€location€of€the€events€of€a€crime€does€not€necessarilyÏconvey€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€crimes€where€no€such€jurisdiction€existsÏunder€authority€of€law.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòMeighan€v.€U.S.€Sprint€Communications€Co.óó,€924€S.W.2d€632,€639Ð è&à" Ð(Tenn.€1996),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€noted€the€distinction€between€a€finding€ofÏvenue€and€a€finding€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€The€court€stated€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àSubject€matter€jurisdiction€and€venue€are€two€separateÏconcepts.€€Subject€matter€jurisdiction€concerns€the€authority€ofÏa€particular€court€to€hear€a€particular€controversy.€€It€relates€toÏthe€nature€of€the€cause€of€action€and€the€relief€sought.€€It€isÏgenerally€defined€by€the€constitution€or€statute€and€conferredÏby€the€authority€that€organizes€the€courts.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àð8ð.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àœVenue,›€on€the€other€hand,€is€a€concept€based€on€theÏprivilege€of€and€convenience€to€the€parties.€€It€is€generally€notÏa€condition€precedent€to€the€courtððs€power,€but€relates€insteadÏto€the€appropriateness€of€the€location€of€the€action.€€WhileÏthere€is€much€debate€regarding€the€connectedness€betweenÐ ¸8°15 Ðthe€two€concepts,€our€rules€of€civil€procedure€have€clearlyÏdistinguished€between€the€two.€€Improper€venue€is€a€matterÏwhich€is€waived€unless€contested€in€the€first€pleading.€€SubjectÏmatter€jurisdiction,€on€the€other€hand,€cannot€be€waived,Ïbecause€it€is€the€basis€for€the€courtððs€authority€to€act.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÝ‚ÿÿÿVG.2d€ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ' ¸ ŒX„¸ ‹X'ÓòòÌÓÓIdóó.Ð ¨   ÐÒ°XÒÌà ¸ àFor€subject€matter€jurisdiction€purposes,€the€circuit€court€ð ðis€a€courtÏof€general€jurisdiction,€and€the€judge€thereof€shall€administer€right€and€justiceÏaccording€to€law,€in€all€cases€where€the€jurisdiction€is€not€conferred€upon€anotherÏtribunal.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€16„10„101€(1994).€€The€circuit€courts€of€Tennessee€haveÏoriginal€jurisdiction€so€long€as€the€jurisdiction€has€not€been€conveyed€to€anotherÏcourt.€€òòStaples€v.€Brownóó,€85€S.W.€254,€255€(Tenn.€1904).€€Furthermore,€theÐ ÈÀ Ðcircuit€court€ð ðhas€exclusive€original€jurisdiction€of€all€crimes€and€misdemeanors,Ïeither€at€common€law€or€by€statute,€unless€otherwise€expressly€provided€byÏstatute€or€this€œCode.ð𛀀T.C.A.€ðð€16„10„102€(1994).ÌÌÒX°Òà ¸ àThere€is€no€doubt€that€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€assumed€that€itÏhad€proper€jurisdiction€and€venue€over€this€case.€€However,€a€showing€by€the€petitionerÏthat€the€court€lacked€proper€subject€matter€jurisdiction€would€render€the€judgment€of€theÏcourt€void.€€As€previously€discussed,€the€petitioner€may€raise€this€issue€in€a€writ€ofÏhabeas€corpus.€€Furthermore,€if€it€becomes€apparent€to€a€court€reviewing€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€that€the€trial€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€then€the€reviewingÏcourt€shall€vacate€the€judgment€and€dismiss€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòSeagravesóó,€837€S.W.2d€atÐ h.`'* Ð616.ÌÌà ¸ àInterestingly,€the€trial€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€told€the€prospectiveÏjurors€that€the€events€occurred€in€Hamilton€County€at€ð ðthe€rear€of€Chattanooga€StateÏTechnical€University€on€the€Amnicola€Highway,€in€the€4700€block,€adjacent€to€the€œñ¶ñÐ È7À04 Ðñ¶ññ·ñ›ñ·ññ¶ñœñ¶ññ¶ñ‡ñ¶ññ·ññ¶ñÌñ¶ññ·ñ›œChickamañ¯ñuñ¯ññ®ñgñ®ññ®ñnñ®ña›€Dam€on€the€TVA€property,€approximately€25€feet€from€the€TennesseeÏRiver.ðð€€However,€this€does€not€represent€a€jurisdictional€finding€that€could€convey€aÏpower€to€the€court€not€granted€to€it€by€law.€€In€any€event,€if€the€federal€government€hadÏexclusive€jurisdiction€over€crimes€occurring€on€the€land€where€the€events€in€the€presentÏcase€occurred,€then€no€finding€by€the€trial€court€could€convey€the€power€of€subjectÏmatter€jurisdiction€to€the€courts€of€Hamilton€County.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÐ (  ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àLast,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€lackedÏsubject€matter€jurisdiction€over€crimes€occurring€on€the€Tennessee€Valley€Authority€landÏbecause€the€federal€government€retained€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€the€land.€€TheÏpetitioner€argues€that€the€terms€of€the€conveyance€of€the€property€granted€exclusiveÏjurisdiction€to€the€federal€government€and€that€this€exclusive€jurisdiction€was€acceptedÏby€the€federal€government.€€The€state€contends€that€any€documentation€necessary€toÏshow€that€exclusive€jurisdiction€was€ceded€to€the€federal€government€should€not€beÏallowed€in€support€of€the€habeas€corpus€petition.€€We€have€already€addressed€theÏpropriety€of€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus€in€this€matter.€€We€conclude€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€status€of€the€property€agreement€between€the€United€States€andÏthe€State€of€Tennessee€is€a€finding€of€fact€proper€for€the€trial€court€and€that€this€caseÏshould€be€remanded€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€to€determine€what€jurisdictional€power,€ifÏany,€has€been€transferred€between€the€federal€government€and€the€State€ofÏTennessee.ÌÌà ¸ àUnder€the€United€States€Constitution,€states€maintain€exclusiveÏjurisdiction€over€all€crimes€committed€within€their€territorial€boundaries,€except€whenÏlands€are€purchased€by€the€federal€government€with€the€consent€of€the€state€for€theÏconstruction€and€maintenance€of€military€installations,€arsenals,€dockyards,€and€the€like.€Ð È7À04 ÐU.S.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8,€cl.€17€(providing€that€the€Congress€shall€have€the€power€toÏð ðexercise€exclusive€legislation€in€all€cases€whatsoever€.€.€.€over€all€places€purchased€byÏthe€consent€of€the€Legislature€of€the€state€in€which€the€same€shall€be,€for€the€erection€ofÏforts,€magazines,€arsenals,€dockyards,€and€other€needful€buildings.ðð).€€Once€ceded,€theÏlands€may€fall€under€the€exclusive€jurisdiction€of€the€United€States.€€òòBowen€v.€Johnstonóó,Ð ˆ€ Ð306€U.S.€19,€23,€59€S.€Ct.€442,€444€(1939).€€If€a€crime€is€committed€within€theÏboundaries€of€lands€where€the€federal€government€has€assumed€exclusive€jurisdiction,Ïthe€federal€courts€have€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€a€prosecution.€€òòIdóó.Ð (  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€terms€of€the€property€cession€agreement€between€the€state€and€theÏfederal€government€determine€the€vestige€of€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòUnited€States€v.Ð ÈÀ ÐHeardóó,€270€F.€Supp.€198,€200€(W.D.€Mo.€1967).€€If€the€state€offers€to€transfer€itsÐ ¨  Ðexclusive€jurisdiction€and€the€federal€government€accepts€the€offer,€then€the€state€mayÏnot€prosecute€crimes€committed€on€the€federal€land.€€òòIdóó.€€For€land€cessions€beforeÐ h` ÐFebruary€1,€1940,€the€federal€government€is€presumed€to€have€€accepted€exclusiveÏjurisdiction€ceded€by€the€state€if€the€use€of€the€land€conferred€a€benefit€to€the€UnitedÏStates.€€òòSeeóó€òòBattle€v.€United€Statesóó,€209€U.S.€36,€38,€28€S.€Ct.€422,€423€(1908);€òòFortÐ %  ÐLeavenworth€R.R.€Co.€v.€Loweóó,€114€U.S.€525,€528,€5€S.€Ct.€995,€997€(1885).€€For€landsÐ è&à" Ðacquired€after€February€1,€1940,€40€U.S.C.€ðð€255€requires€the€United€States€to€takeÏaffirmative€action€to€assert€this€exclusive€jurisdiction.€€òòHeardóó,€270€F.€Supp.€at€200.€Ð ¨* #& ÐWhether€the€United€States€acquired€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€the€lands€or€whether€theÏstate€reserved€jurisdiction€depends€on€the€terms€of€the€consent€or€cession€given€by€theÏstate.€€òòBowenóó,€306€U.S.€at€23,€59€S.€Ct.€at€444.Ð H0@), ÐÌÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  Ýà ¸ àWhen€tract€CR€1418€was€deeded€to€the€United€States€in€1938,ÏTennessee€Code€ðð€98€(repealed€January€20,€1943)€was€in€effect.€€The€statutoryÏprovision€provided:Ð È7À04 ÐÝ‚ÿÿÿ$bÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà8 ¸ àThat€pursuant€to€article€(1)€one,€section€eight,€clauseÏseventeen,€of€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States,€consent€toÏpurchase€is€hereby€given,€and€exclusive€jurisdiction€ceded€toÏthe€United€States,€over€and€with€respect€to€any€lands€within€theÏlimits€of€this€state€which€shall€be€acquired€by€the€United€StatesÏfor€any€purpose€in€said€clause€of€the€Constitution€of€the€UnitedÏStates;€said€jurisdiction€to€continue€as€long€as€the€lands€areÏheld€and€occupied€by€the€United€States€for€public€purposes,Ïreserving,€however,€to€this€state,€a€concurrent€jurisdiction€forÏthe€execution€upon€said€lands€of€all€process,€civil€or€criminal,Ïlawfully€issued€by€the€courts€of€the€state,€and€not€incompatibleÏwith€the€cession:€Provided,€that€an€accurate€map€or€plan,€andÏdescription€by€metes€and€bounds€of€said€lands€shall€be€filed€inÏthe€county€clerkððs€office€of€the€county€in€which€the€same€areÏsituated;€and€provided€that€the€state€reserves€the€right€to€taxÏall€property€of€any€railroad,€or€other€corporation,€having€right€ofÏway,€or€location€over€or€upon€said€lands.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌTennessee€Code€ðð€98€(1932)€(repealed€January€20,€1943).Ó ¾ÛÓÌÌÝ‚ÿÿÿ}cÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÓÓÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€language€of€the€Tennessee€Code€ðð€98€reserving€the€right€to€serveÏprocess€on€the€ceded€lands€does€not€make€the€jurisdiction€of€the€state€concurrent€withÏthat€of€the€United€States.€€òòSeeóó€òòLeavenworthóó,€114€U.S.€at€533„34,€5€S.€Ct.€at€1000€(theÐ $ ÐState€of€Kansas€conferred€exclusive€jurisdiction€for€all€ceded€lands€under€a€statuteÏalmost€identical€to€Tennessee€Code€ðð€98).€€òòButóó€òòcfóó.€òòBowenóó,€306€U.S.€at€29,€59€S.€Ct.€atÐ ä"Ü Ð447€(when€the€terms€of€the€cession€retained€civil€and€criminal€jurisdiction,€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€federal€government€and€the€state€was€€concurrent).€€The€object€of€theÏright€to€serve€process€clause€is€to€prevent€the€ceded€lands€from€ð ðbecoming€a€sanctuaryÏfor€fugitives€from€justice€for€acts€done€within€the€acknowledged€jurisdiction€of€the€state.ðð€ÏòòLeavenworthóó,€114€U.S.€at€534,€5€S.€Ct.€at€1000.€€When€the€state€cedes€jurisdiction€toÐ D,<%( Ðthe€United€States,€the€state€may€impose€conditions€that€are€not€inconsistent€with€theÏpurpose€of€the€œacquisition.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòIdóó.,€114€U.S.€at€542,€5€S.€Ct.€at€1005.€›€As€long€asÐ 0ü(, ÐCongress€took€jurisdiction€of€a€territory€within€a€state€ceded€or€purchased,€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€state€to€support€and€maintain€its€laws€may€not€be€asserted.€€òòState€v.Ð Ä3¼,0 Ðâ âOliveróó,€35€S.W.2d€396,€402€(Tenn.€1931).Ð ¤5œ.2 ÐÓ ¾ÛÓà ¸ àIn€1943,€Tennessee€repealed€Tennessee€Code€ðð€98.€€In€repealing€theÏâ âAct,€the€State€of€Tennessee€did€not€purport€that€its€jurisdiction€over€lands€alreadyÏpurchased€by€the€United€States€was€regained.€€ð ðAfter€œthñ°ñisñ°ññ±ñeñ±ñ›€exclusive€jurisdiction€hadÏœbeenñ²ñ€granted›€by›€the›€state›€andñ²ñ›€accepted€by€the€United€States,€it€œñ³ñcouldñ³ññ´ñcanñ´ññµñ€ñµñnot›€be€recaptured€by€the€action€of€theÏstate€alone.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Unzeutaóó,€281€U.S.€138,€143,€50€S.€Ct.€284,€285Ð ˆ€ Ð(1930)€(holding€that€Nebraska€conferred€exclusive€jurisdiction€for€all€ceded€lands€underÏa€statute€almost€identical€to€Tennessee€Code€ðð€98,€and€concluding€that€an€amendmentÏto€the€ceding€provisions€was€ineffective€for€previously€ceded€lands.)€€In€general,€theÏcourts€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€lack€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€matters€occurringÏon€federal€lands€purchased€before€1940€without€express€provisions€to€the€contraryÏcontained€in€the€property€agreement.ÌÌà ¸ àA€situation€similar€to€the€petitionerððs€was€addressed€by€our€supreme€courtÏin€òòGill€v.€Stateóó,€210€S.W.€637,€638€(Tenn.€1919).€€In€òòGillóó,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€inÐ h` Ðstate€court€of€a€crime€occurring€on€the€property€of€a€munitions€plant€owned€by€theÏUnited€States.€€The€court€held€that€the€ð ðrule€is€well€settled€that,€if€a€crime€is€committedÏwithin€the€boundaries€of€such€lands€so€ceded€or€purchased€by€the€United€States€withÏthe€consent€of€the€state,€the€federal€courts€have€jurisdiction€of€a€prosecution€therefor€toÏthe€exclusion€of€the€state€courts.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð È(À!$ ÐÌà ¸ àHowever,€in€òòGillóó,€the€court€found€that€the€United€States€had€not€compliedÐ ˆ,€%( Ðwith€the€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€ðð€98.€€The€government€had€not€filed€a€map€orÏplan€and€description€by€metes€and€bounds€in€the€county€clerkððs€office.€€òòIdóó.€€Therefore,Ð H0@), Ðthe€court€held€that€the€government€had€taken€no€action€showing€a€purpose€or€intent€toÏassume€jurisdiction€over€the€territory.€€The€court€also€held€that€the€federal€governmentÏdid€not€have€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€the€land,€and€therefore,€Gillððs€conviction€in€theÏstate€court€was€affirmed.€€òòIdóó.€at€638„39.Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòGillóó.€€The€documentation€inÐ  Ðthe€record€reflects€that€upon€acquiring€the€deed€to€tract€CR€1418€in€1938,€the€UnitedÏStates€did€file€a€map€or€plan,€and€description€by€metes€and€bounds,€of€the€tract€in€theÏcounty€clerkððs€office€of€Hamilton€County,€where€tract€CR€1418€was€located.€€Also,€theÏSupreme€Court€has€held€that€locks€and€dams,€like€the€one€for€which€CR€1418€wasÏpurchased,€constitute€ð ðneedful€buildingsðð€as€used€under€Article€1,€ðð€8,€clause€17,€of€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€are€a€benefit€to€the€United€States.€€òòJames€v.€DravoÐ H@  ÐContracting€Co.óó,€302€U.S.€134,€142„43,€58€S.€Ct.€208,€212„13€(1937).€€Therefore,€by€theÐ (  Ðterms€of€the€Tennessee€Code€ðð€98,€the€State€of€Tennessee€conferred€exclusiveÏjurisdiction€over€tract€CR€1418€to€the€United€States,€and€by€the€presumption€ofÏexclusive€jurisdiction€operating€under€òòLeavenworthóó,€114€U.S.€at€528,€5€S.€Ct.€at€997,€theÐ ÈÀ ÐUnited€States€accepted€it.ÌÌà ¸ àSeveral€states€have€addressed€similar€jurisdictional€issues€to€that€raisedÏby€the€petitioner.€€In€òòManley€v.€Burkhartóó,€531€N.E.2d€1306,€1309€(Ohio€1988),€theÐ H!@ Ðpetitioner€contested€convictions€for€assaults€that€took€place€at€the€Hannibal€Lock€andÏDam€Project€of€the€U.S.€Army€Corps€of€Engineers.€€The€Ohio€Supreme€Court€held€thatÏbecause€the€record€did€not€show€that€the€property€where€the€offenses€occurred€wasÏpurchased€before€February€1,€1940,€and€that€the€federal€government€had€not€expresslyÏaccepted€jurisdiction€as€required€by€40€U.S.C.€ðð€255,€the€Ohio€state€courts€had€properÏsubject€matter€jurisdiction.€€òòManleyóó,€531€N.E.2d€at€œ1309.›€€In€òòState€v.€Burellóó,€123€S.E.2dÐ ˆ,€%( Ð795,€801€(N.C.€1962),€and€òòState€v.€Grahamóó,€267€S.E.2d€56,€59€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1980),Ð h.`'* Ðthe€appellate€courts€followed€reasoning€similar€to€that€in€òòManleyóó.€€Because€the€landsÐ H0@), Ðwere€acquired€after€February€1,€1940,€and€there€was€no€showing€by€the€petitioner€thatÏthe€federal€government€had€expressly€accepted€jurisdiction,€the€appellate€courtsÏconcluded€that€the€state€could€properly€exercise€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€theÏdefendants.€€òòBurellóó,€123€S.E.2d€at€801;€òòGrahamóó,€267€S.E.2d€at€59.Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòManleyóó,€òòBurellóó,€and€òòGrahamóóÐ  Ðin€that€the€TVA€property€where€the€crime€took€place€was€purchased€before€February€1,Ï1940,€and€the€presumption€of€òòLeavenworthóó€that€the€federal€government€acceptedÐ È À Ðexclusive€jurisdiction€operates.€€The€United€States€accepted€the€exclusive€jurisdictionÏoffered€by€Tennessee€Code€ðð€98€when€it€filed€a€map€or€plan€with€the€county€clerkððsÏoffice.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.ó óÐ (  ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àThere€is,€however,€an€additional€question€about€the€property€agreementÏbetween€the€United€States€and€the€State€of€Tennessee€existing€at€the€time€of€theÏpetitionerððs€offenses.€€The€record€contains€a€copy€of€an€easement€executed€on€MarchÏ5,€1992,€assigning€all€ð ðrights,€privileges,€and€powersðð€over€the€tract€from€HamiltonÏCounty,€Tennessee,€to€the€City€of€Chattanooga€with€the€consent€of€the€TVA.€€While€thisÏtransfer€of€rights€is€after€the€date€of€the€offenses,€the€grant€of€an€earlier€easement€toÏHamilton€County€could€be€controlling€on€the€question€of€jurisdiction.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€mere€fact€that€a€portion€of€the€property€is€used€as€a€right€of€way€is€notÏin€itself€controlling€on€jurisdiction,€and€rights€of€way€for€various€purposes€may€be€entirelyÏcompatible€with€the€exclusive€jurisdiction€ceded€to€the€United€States.€€òòUnzeutaóó,€281Ð È(À!$ ÐU.S.€at€144,€50€S.€Ct.€at€œ286.›€€A€right€of€way€gives€one€party€the€right€to€pass€over€theÏland€of€another€and€is€considered€to€be€an€easement.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòPanhandle€EasternÐ ˆ,€%( ÐPipeline€Co.€v.€State€Highway€Commððnóó,€294€U.S.€613,€618,€55€S.€Ct.€563,€œ565Ð h.`'* Ð(1935).›€€However,€when€an€easement€is€granted,€the€extent€of€the€rights€granted€orÏreserved€depends€on€the€terms€of€the€easement.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòFoshee€v.€Brigmanóó,€129Ð (2 +. ÐS.W.2d€207,€208€(1939).€€If€the€easement€is€specific€in€its€terms,€it€is€decisive€of€theÏlimits€of€the€easement.€€òòId.óó€€In€construing€the€extent€of€the€expressed€rights€andÐ è5à.2 Ðliabilities€of€the€parties€to€the€easement,€the€situation€of€the€property€and€theÐ È7À04 Ðsurrounding€circumstances€demonstrates€the€intent€of€the€parties€at€the€easementððsÏformation.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòBrew€v.€Van€Demanóó,€53€Tenn.€(6€Heisk.)€433€(1871).€€When€theÐ èà Ðterms€of€the€easement€are€general,€an€exercise€of€a€right,€with€the€acquiescence€andÏconsent€of€the€other€party,€fixes€the€terms€of€the€easement€and€is€demonstrative€of€theÏpartiesðð€intent.€€òòIdóó.Ð ˆ€ ÐÌà ¸ àAn€act€of€the€federal€government€granting€land€to€a€state€is€to€be€treatedÏas€both€law€and€a€grant,€and€the€intent€of€the€federal€government€controls€theÏinterpretation€of€the€law€and€conditions€of€the€grant.€€òòSeeóó€òòWisconsin€C.€R.€Co.€v.Ð  ÐForsytheóó,€159€U.S.€46,€55,€15€S.€Ct.€1020,€1023€(1895).€€The€federal€government€mayÐ èà Ðconvey€the€grant€of€an€easement€over€federal€land€to€any€state€for€any€recreational€orÏlegitimate€public€purpose.€€43€U.S.C.€ðððð€869(a),€869„2€(1986).€€Partial,€concurrent,€orÏexclusive€jurisdiction€over€the€areas€covered€by€a€stateððs€easement€may€be€ceded€toÏthe€state.€€43€U.S.C.€ðð€931a€(1986).ÌÌà ¸ àThe€easement€presented€by€the€petitioner€conveys€all€ð ðrights,€privileges,Ïand€powersðð€from€Hamilton€County,€Tennessee,€to€the€City€of€Chattanooga€in€1992.€ÏThere€is€no€indication€in€the€documentation€as€to€how€Hamilton€County€gained€controlÏover€the€land.€€When€a€grantee€receives€an€easement€from€the€federal€government,€theÏgrantee€may€transfer€title€received€from€the€federal€government€only€with€the€approvalÏof€the€original€federal€grantor.€€43€U.S.C.€ðð€869„2(a)€(1986).€€The€easement€fromÏHamilton€County,€Tennessee€to€the€City€of€Chattanooga€has€the€approval€of€the€TVAÏattached€to€it.ÌÌà ¸ àIf€Hamilton€County€or€the€City€of€Chattanooga€held€the€power€to€build€aÏpark€or€maintain€the€lands€where€the€crimes€occurred,€then€perhaps€it€was€the€intent€ofÏthe€federal€government€that€the€County€or€City€have€the€authority€to€regulate€theÐ È7À04 Ðactivities€on€these€lands.€€However,€the€particular€status€of€the€land€where€the€offensesÏwere€committed€represents€a€finding€of€fact€and€is€beyond€the€purview€of€this€court.€€IfÏthe€federal€government€originally€held€and€maintained€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€theÏland€where€the€events€occurred,€then€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€would€haveÏbeen€without€the€proper€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€convict€the€petitioner.€€Conversely,Ïif€the€actions€of€the€federal€government€conveyed€sufficient€jurisdiction€back€to€HamiltonÏCounty,€then€the€convictions€would€stand,€and€the€dismissal€of€the€habeas€corpusÏpetition€would€be€proper.€€In€this€respect,€the€important€questions€left€unanswered€in€theÏrecord€before€us€are€whether€TVA€transferred€rights€to€the€land€to€Hamilton€County€atÏthe€time€of€the€petitionerððs€offenses,€and€if€so,€what€rights€were€transferred.ÌÌÓ  Óò òV.ó óÐ ¨  ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€state,€in€its€brief€response€to€the€habeas€corpus€petition,€relies€heavilyÏon€this€courtððs€decision€in€òòMassengaleóó,€arguing€that€venue€was€found€to€exist€at€theÐ h` Ðconvicting€trial€and€that€nothing€in€the€record€contradicts€this€finding.€€The€state€reasonsÏthat€this€makes€the€convictions€merely€voidable,€not€void.€€Because€the€finding€of€venueÏwas€a€finding€of€fact,€the€state€argues€that€the€decision€of€the€Hamilton€County€courtÏshould€not€be€disturbed.€€However,€as€previously€noted,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏhas€drawn€a€distinction€between€a€finding€of€venue€and€the€granted€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€of€the€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòMeighanóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€639.€€If€a€court€has€no€jurisdictionÐ ¨* #& Ðover€the€subject€matter€of€the€criminal€conviction,€the€defendantððs€conviction€in€thatÏcourt€is€void.€€òòWrightóó,€451€S.W.2d€at€œ709.›€€In€this€fashion,€a€finding€that€the€offensesÐ h.`'* Ðoccurred€within€the€boundaries€of€Hamilton€County€does€not€foreclose€the€issue€ofÏwhether€they€occurred€on€land€under€the€exclusive€jurisdiction€of€the€federalÏgovernment.Ìâ âÐ è5à.2 Ðà ¸ àWe€also€note€that€in€òòMassengaleóó,€this€court€stated€in€dictum€that€ð ðwhetherÐ  Ðâ âthe€locus€of€an€alleged€crime€was€within€the€exclusive€jurisdiction€of€the€United€States€isÏan€issue€for€determination€by€the€trial€court€where€the€indictment€is€found€and€cannot€beÏraised,€as€here,€by€writ€of€habeas€corpus€on€the€ground€of€want€of€jurisdiction.ðð€ÏòòMassengaleóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€123€(citing€òòRodman€v.€Pothieróó,€264€U.S.€399,€44€S.€Ct.€360Ð ˆ€ Ð(1924)).€€We€do€not€believe€that€this€language€should€be€interpreted€to€mean€that€theÏwrit€of€habeas€corpus€is€never€appropriate€when€a€lack€of€jurisdiction€is€alleged.€€ThisÏlanguage€has€been€used€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€two€decisions,€once€inÏthe€case€of€òòHenry€v.€Henkelóó,€235€U.S.€219,€228,€35€S.€Ct.€54,€57€(1914),€and€again€inÐ  ÐòòRodmanóó.€€In€both€decisions,€this€language€was€used€to€deny€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€forÐ èà Ðremoval€proceedings€òòbeforeóó€òòtrialóó€when€a€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€was€alleged.€Ð ÈÀ ÐIn€òòHenryóó,€the€Court€curtailed€the€use€of€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus€in€advance€of€trial€andÐ ¨  Ðdirect€appeal€with€the€express€motive€of€not€interfering€with€the€administration€of€theÏcriminal€law€in€the€trial€courts.€€òòIdóó.€€The€Court€held€that€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus€shouldÐ h` Ðonly€be€granted€before€trial€for€jurisdictional€questions€stemming€from€exceptionalÏcases.€€òòIdóó.Ð (#  ÐÌà ¸ àÔ  ÔIn€òòMassengaleóó,€this€court€found€that€the€petitioner€did€not€meet€the€burdenÐ è&à" Ðof€proof€required€to€show€that€the€federal€government€had€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€theÏland€where€the€offenses€occurred.€€However,€the€supporting€materials€submitted€by€theÏpresent€petitioner€with€his€habeas€corpus€petition€indicate€that€the€crimes€may€haveÏoccurred€on€lands€owned€by€the€Tennessee€Valley€Authority€and€under€the€exclusiveÏjurisdiction€of€the€federal€government.€€Proof€on€these€issues€was€not€allowed€by€theÏtrial€court.€€Thus,€there€are€no€findings€of€fact€relative€to€(1)€the€location€of€the€criminalÏevents,€(2)€the€owner€of€the€property€where€and€when€the€offenses€occurred,€and€(3)Ïâ âthe€status€of€the€agreements,€if€any,€between€the€property€owner€and€other€entities€atÐ è5à.2 Ðthat€time.€€These€represent€findings€of€fact€that€the€trial€court€should€make€after€anÏappropriate€evidentiary€hearing.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€reverseÏthe€dismissal€of€the€petition€for€habeas€corpus€relief€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€for€such€further€action€as€it€deems€appropriate.€€Ô  ÔÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_____________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌJohn€œK.›€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÌ