ÿWPC!& €}ëtdF1#ªÀ3Û–pƒ×ÛS9O+v×kº6¥@©b ÊïO£&¢ü%9IkÛõ‰uÃûÿä¨X¡ô/jþ«Z è‚ƒêð¾Î&‘îÄý£ ª³h'kö™F Ém‘ù­fP£Î8Ã, YxË/ýÊÃÉ` O}¦œ•Ť0Ÿ[Zö©­_‹%Zže °N¹ÛÊ)6¿]5E*Ÿ–éyP–,|ŸU•v¯‰”Ñþ/? €¬JÑ´ƒCZ}!Ãm ÷Öq$sÃö@S5…_ mÊÏåÎ- – ¤°%h~ÖLІ© /:f‹xS[U é$þ!x!ÏŒA±‹KÖM ^öä†ÛçÜw-ªQ ‚…}¹ì% ÝX“ 2âçdŒÁEk\jr3f Ÿ¶¯+TA?ɪxÀåäV^³Os}ç {=j-l‹¼ÃHÌ {ÄdÝÁzí?2õ×;ñ%è S–¿I^ਪ™Ô´¿ËM)f?nu7ÒE}K}ÍxV»²¥X@f€D®gÍ•ú¬äc¬$…U80•Kz!ÁVòrÞT)ëÓÓ|*½¥üÕy«WÿÀvèWi3®Âüõ¸±1ˆ/å È+ó—7´G[Òk%ª8›:…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0D8 ç| Òc U:5ÑoU:@zÑ‚U:S"U:"çÇ"U:®#®#®#®#®#®#®#®#®# Bè#è#è#è#è#è#è#è#è#è#è# D3$$$ 0D8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$8$ AO|$ÆË$Ë$ 0D‘% D/Õ% B&˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6HPBXLBÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- LMNODPQDRSTÓ€^uM%3|x`(v(2zÏ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XDÚXXXÔÔ€ôøŸôXXDÚÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÝÔ€XDÚXXXÔÔ€È XXDÚÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XDÚX ÈÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€20,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó ÈÝ ƒ A_$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XF»XXXÔÔ€ô9ËôXXF»Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€also€argues€that€regardless€of€the€established€law€regarding€the€revocation€ofÐ `  Ðconditional€commutations,€he€is€entitled€to€relief€under€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine.€€Specifically,€AppellantÏrelies€on€a€statement€in€òòGarvin€T.€Shepherdóó,€1996€WL€529994,€at€*1,€in€which€this€Court€indicated€thatÐ Ü | ÐAppellant€would€be€entitled€to€relief€if€he€could€establish€that€his€commuted€sentence€had€expired€beforeÏthe€revocation€was€undertaken.€€However,€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€is€not€a€constitutional€mandate€or€aÏlimitation€on€the€power€of€a€court.€€òòMemphis€Pub.€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€StorageÐ  ¶ ÐTank€Bd.óó,€975€S.W.2d€303,€306€(Tenn.€1998).€€Rather,€it€is€a€discretionary€doctrine€that€need€not€beÐ Ô t Ðapplied€when€the€prior€ruling€was€clearly€erroneous€and€would€result€in€a€manifest€injustice€if€allowed€toÏstand.€€òòId.óó€€First,€it€should€be€noted€that€this€statement€is€dicta€and€is€not€necessary€to€the€narrow€holdingÐ Pð Ðof€the€previous€case.€Secondly,€and€perhaps€more€importantly,€the€statement€was€made€by€this€CourtÏwhile€this€Court€was€under€the€mistaken€impression€that€the€terms€of€the€commutation€lasted€only€for€theÏterm€of€the€sentence€as€commuted€rather€than€the€sentence€as€imposed.€As€noted€previously,€the€expressÏterms€of€the€commutation,€as€accepted€by€Appellant,€clearly€submit€him€to€supervision€for€the€term€of€theÏsentence€as€originally€imposed.€€For€these€reasons€we€decline€to€apply€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€in€thisÏappeal.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÇÝ ƒ Z÷$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XsO XXXÔÔ€ôÙ¡ô XXsOÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€also€argues€that€regardless€of€the€established€law€regarding€the€revocation€ofÐ `  Ðconditional€commutations,€he€is€entitled€to€relief€under€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine.€€Specifically,€AppellantÏrelies€on€a€statement€in€òòGarvin€T.€Shepherdóó,€1996€WL€529994,€at€*1,€in€which€this€Court€indicated€thatÐ Ü | ÐAppellant€would€be€entitled€to€relief€if€he€could€establish€that€his€commuted€sentence€had€expired€beforeÏthe€revocation€was€undertaken.€€However,€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€is€not€a€constitutional€mandate€or€aÏlimitation€on€the€power€of€a€court.€€òòMemphis€Pub.€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€StorageÐ  ¶ ÐTank€Bd.óó,€975€S.W.2d€303,€306€(Tenn.€1998).€€Rather,€it€is€a€discretionary€doctrine€that€need€not€beÐ Ô t Ðapplied€when€the€prior€ruling€was€clearly€erroneous€and€would€result€in€a€manifest€injustice€if€allowed€toÏstand.€€òòId.óó€€First,€it€should€be€noted€that€his€statement€is€dicta€and€is€not€necessary€to€the€narrow€holdingÐ Pð Ðof€the€previous€case.€Secondly,€and€perhaps€more€importantly,€the€statement€was€made€by€this€CourtÏwhile€this€Court€was€under€the€mistaken€impression€that€the€terms€of€the€commutation€lasted€only€for€theÏterm€of€the€sentence€as€commuted€rather€than€the€sentence€as€imposed.€As€noted€previously,€the€expressÏterms€of€the€commutation,€as€accepted€by€Appellant,€clearly€submit€him€to€supervision€for€the€term€of€theÏsentence€as€originally€imposed.€€For€these€reasons€we€decline€to€apply€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€in€thisÏappeal.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÇÝ ƒ Z÷$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xæ®XXXÔÔ€ô™êôXXæ®Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€also€argues€that€regardless€of€the€established€law€regarding€the€revocation€ofÐ `  Ðconditional€commutations,€he€is€entitled€to€relief€under€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine.€€Specifically,€AppellantÏrelies€on€a€statement€in€òòGarvin€T.€Shepherdóó,€1996€WL€529994,€at€*1,€in€which€this€Court€indicated€thatÐ Ü | ÐAppellant€would€be€entitled€to€relief€if€he€could€establish€that€his€commuted€sentence€had€expired€beforeÏthe€revocation€was€undertaken.€€However,€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€is€not€a€constitutional€mandate€or€aÏlimitation€on€the€power€of€a€court.€€òòMemphis€Pub.€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€StorageÐ  ¶ ÐTank€Bd.óó,€975€S.W.2d€303,€306€(Tenn.€1998).€€Rather,€it€is€a€discretionary€doctrine€that€need€not€beÐ Ô t Ðapplied€when€the€prior€ruling€was€clearly€erroneous€and€would€result€in€a€manifest€injustice€if€allowed€toÏstand.€€òòId.óó€€First,€it€should€be€noted€that€his€statement€is€dicta€and€is€not€necessary€to€the€narrow€holdingÐ Pð Ðof€the€previous€case.€Secondly,€and€perhaps€more€importantly,€the€statement€was€made€by€this€CourtÏwhile€this€Court€was€under€the€mistaken€impression€that€the€terms€of€the€commutation€lasted€only€for€theÏterm€of€the€sentence€as€commuted€rather€than€the€sentence€as€imposed.€As€noted€previously,€the€expressÏterms€of€the€commutation,€as€accepted€by€Appellant,€clearly€submit€him€to€supervision€for€the€term€of€theÏsentence€as€originally€imposed.€€For€these€reasons€we€decline€to€apply€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€in€thisÏappeal.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular ÝÔ€XDÚXXXÔÔ€È XXDÚÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XDÚX ÈÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñTñ›ñTñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Šè©ŠXXÔÔ€ŠêŠŠŠè©ÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€"úXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ^ññTñßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx0,` ð ærßñTññ^ññ^ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx0,` ð ærßñ^ññTñ›ñTñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌNOVEMBER€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓGARVIN€T.€SHEPHERD,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9710„CC„00452Ð (È Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð  À Ðà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð ¸  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àWAYNE€COUNTYÐ ¨  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ    Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€ROBERT€L.€JONESó óÐ ø˜  Ðò òJAMES€M.€DAVIS,€Warden,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ð  Ðò òWAYNE€COUNTY€BOOTà À à)Ð èˆ ÐCAMP,€and€à  àà h àà À à)Ð à€ ÐSTATE€OF€œTENNESSEEó óñNñ,ñNñ›à À àò ò)ó óÐ Øx Ðà ` àœAppellees.›à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Habeas€Corpus€Relief)Ð Ðp Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð ¨H ÐÌJOHN€E.€HERBISONà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ˜!8 Ð2016€Eighth€Avenue€Southà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ "0 ÐNashville,€TN€€37204Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLISA€A.€NAYLORÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMIKE€BOTTOMSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJ.€DOUG€DICUSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.€O.€Box€1119Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWaynesboro,€TN€€38485ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  è6ˆ-/— ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„³a„ŠŠêÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†ŠêŠ„„³aô #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€"úXXdæXXdæ7ÑÌà ` àOn€June€24,€1995,€Appellant€Garvin€T.€Shepherd€filed€a€petition€for€habeasÏcorpus€relief€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Wayne€County,€asserting€that€his€sentenceÏhad€expired.€€On€November€1,€1995,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€for€lackÏof€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€On€September€19,€1996,€this€Court€reversed€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remanded€the€case€for€further€proceedings.€€AfterÏan€evidentiary€hearing€on€May€8,€1997,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€asÏbeing€without€merit.€€Appellant€challenges€the€dismissal€of€his€petition.€€After€aÏreview€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@––)®àò òBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ ² ÐÌà ` àOn€January€5,€1972,€Appellant€received€a€ninety„nine€year€sentence€for€aÏrape€conviction.€€On€September€24,€1984,€Governor€Lamar€Alexander€signed€anÏorder€of€executive€clemency€that€commuted€Appellantððs€ninety„nine€yearÏsentence€to€a€sentence€of€twenty€years.€€The€order€of€executive€clemency€statedÏthat€the€commutation€contained€the€following€conditions:ÌÓÓà0 ` àà ¸ à1)€[Appellant]€is€to€lead€the€life€of€a€good€citizen,€obey€the€laws,€andÏnot€be€guilty€of€conduct€which€is€illegal€or€improper€in€the€opinion€of€theÏGovernor.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ à2)€[Appellant]€will€be€under€parole€and/or€commutation€supervisionÏby€the€Board€of€Paroles€until€the€expiration€of€his€original€sentence,€andÏmust€abide€by€the€terms€of€this€supervision.Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ à3)€[Appellant]€is€not€to€use,€possess,€or€be€associated€with,€any€typeÏof€firearms€or€illegal€drugs.€€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àIn€the€event€the€Governor€determines€that€any€of€the€foregoingÏconditions€have€been€violated,€the€Governor€in€his€discretion€may€revokeÏthis€grant€of€executive€clemency€and€require€the€grantee€to€undergo€theÏremainder€of€his/her€sentence.€€The€Governor€shall€be€the€sole€judge€asÏto€whether€any€of€the€aforesaid€conditions€have€been€violated,€and€thereÏshall€be€no€review€of€his€action€thereon€by€any€Court€whatsoever.€€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÐ 2:Ò02 ÐÓÓà ` àOn€October€8,€1984,€the€effective€date€of€the€order€of€executive€clemency,ÏAppellant€was€released€from€custody.€€On€September€19,€1986,€Appellant€wasÏarrested€and€charged€with€aggravated€rape.€€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€rape€onÏOctober€30,€1987,€and€he€received€a€twelve€year€sentence€on€December€4,€1987.€ÏOn€August€25,€1988,€Governor€Ned€McWherter€signed€an€order€that€revokedÏAppellantððs€commutation.€€The€revocation€order€provided€that€Appellant€was€toÏreceive€credit€for€all€ð ðstreet€timeðð€and€that€Appellantððs€new€twelve€year€sentenceÏwas€to€begin€on€the€probationary€parole€date€of€the€original€ninety„nine€yearÏsentence.€ÌÌà ` àIn€1990,€Appellant€filed€a€petition€for€habeas€corpus€relief€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€of€Davidson€County,€asserting€that€his€confinement€on€the€ninety„nine€yearÏsentence€was€illegal€because€the€Governor€had€no€legal€authority€to€revoke€hisÏcommutation€and€reinstate€the€previous€sentence.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€theÏpetition€without€a€hearing,€and€Appellant€appealed.€€This€Court€subsequentlyÏaffirmed€the€dismissal€of€the€petition,€holding€that€the€Governor€did€have€legalÏauthority€to€revoke€the€commutation€and€reinstate€the€original€sentence€becauseÏthe€commutation€was€expressly€conditioned€on€Appellantððs€good€behaviorÏthroughout€the€term€of€his€original€sentence.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Garvin€Shepherd€v.Ð @,à"$ ÐJack€Morganóó,€No.€89-287-III,€1990€WL€78944,€at€*2ð!ð4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð 0.Ð$& ÐNashville,€June€13,€1990).ÌÌà ` àOn€June€24,€1995,€Appellant€filed€the€petition€in€this€case€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€of€Wayne€County,€asserting€that€he€was€entitled€to€release€œfñOñorñOññPñroñPñm›€prisonÏbecause€the€revocation€of€his€commutation€was€void€and€the€subsequentÏsentence€of€twelve€years€he€received€in€1987€had€expired.€€On€November€1,Ð Ð9p02 Ð1995,€œñKññJñTñJññKññLñtñLñhe›€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€without€a€hearing€on€the€basis€of€a€lackÏof€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€This€Court€subsequently€reversed€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€and€remanded€the€case€for€a€determination€of€whether€theÏcommuted€sentence€had€expired,€stating€that€if€the€commuted€sentence€hadÏexpired,€œthñQñañQññRñeñRñn›€the€commutation€revocation€was€void.€€òòGarvin€T.€Shepherd€v.Ð  À ÐJames€M.€Davisóó,€No.€œ01C01„ñSñ9601„ñSñCC„00007,›€1996€WL€529994,€at€*1€(Tenn.Ð °  ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€19,€1996).€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€May€8,Ï1997,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€as€being€without€merit.ÌÌà@’’*®àò òANALYSISó óˆÐ Ðp ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€habeas€corpus€relief€because€bothÏof€his€sentences€have€expired.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€revocation€of€hisÏcommutation€was€void€because€the€Governor€had€no€power€to€revoke€hisÏcommutation€once€the€commuted€sentence€had€expired.€€Appellant€also€arguesÏthat€because€the€revocation€of€his€commutation€was€void,€he€has€been€servingÏhis€subsequent€twelve€year€sentence,€not€his€original€ninety„nine€year€sentence,Ïand€his€twelve€year€sentence€has€expired.ÌÌà@­­"®àò òA.€€Habeas€Corpus€Reliefó óˆÐ @.à$& ÐÌà ` àIt€is€well-established€in€Tennessee€that€habeas€corpus€relief€is€onlyÏavailable€when€a€conviction€is€void€because€the€convicting€court€was€withoutÏjurisdiction€or€authority€to€sentence€a€defendant,€or€when€a€defendantððs€sentenceÏhas€expired€and€the€defendant€is€being€illegally€restrained.€€òòArcher€v.€Stateóó,€851Ð 8 .0 ÐS.W.2d€157,€164€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòJohns€v.€Bowlenóó,€942€S.W.2d€544,€546€(Tenn.Ð ð902 ÐCrim.€App.€1996).€€Because€Appellant€contends€that€the€revocation€of€hisÏcommutation€was€void€and€therefore€his€sentences€have€expired,€a€petition€forÏhabeas€corpus€relief€is€the€appropriate€method€for€seeking€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòRicks€v.Ð @ à ÐStateóó,€882€S.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð 0Ð ÐÌà@ff"®àò òB.€€Power€of€Commutationó óˆÐ °  ÐÌà ` àArticle€III,€Section€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€that€theÏGovernor€ð ðshall€have€the€power€to€grant€reprieves€and€pardons,€after€conviction,Ïexcept€in€cases€of€impeachment.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art€III,€ðð€6.€€This€power€to€grantÏreprieves€and€pardons€ð ðembraces€the€right€to€commute€a€sentence,€that€is,€toÏimpose€a€lesser€or€shorter€sentence€for€the€sentence€imposed€following€aÏdefendant's€conviction.ðð€€òòCarroll€v.€Raneyóó,€953€S.W.2d€657,€659€(Tenn.€1997);Ð ° P ÐòòBowen€v.€Stateóó,€488€S.W.2d€373,€375€(Tenn.€1972).€€The€commuted€sentenceÐ  "@ Ðstands€as€if€it€had€been€the€judgment€imposed€in€the€first€instance.€€òòCarrollóó,€953Ð $0 ÐS.W.2d€at€659;€òòBowenóó,€488€S.W.2d€at€375.Ð €&  ÐÌà ` àð ðThe€Governorððs€power€to€grant€reprieves,€pardons€and€commutations€isÏlimited€only€by€the€language€in€the€Constitution.ðð€€òòCarrollóó,€953€S.W.2d€at€659.€Ð P,ð"$ ÐThus,€ð ðneither€the€legislature€nor€the€judicial€branch€of€government€has€theÏauthority€to€regulate€or€control€the€governorððs€power€to€commute€a€sentence.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ 00Ð&( Ðat€660€(quoting€òòRicksóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€391).€€In€addition,€the€Governor€has€theÐ  2À(* Ðauthority€to€attach€conditions€or€restrictions€to€a€commuted€sentence€that€areÏð ðreasonable,€legal,€and€possible€for€the€defendant€to€perform.ðð€€òòCarrollóó,€953Ð 6 ,. ÐS.W.2d€at€660;€òòRicksóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€392.€Ð ð7.0 ÐÐ à9€02 Ðà ` àð ðBy€accepting€the€conditional€commutation,€the€prisoner€accepts€theÏconditions€imposed€therein.ðð€€òòWhite€v.€Stateóó,€717€S.W.2d€309,€310€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð P ð ÐApp.€1986).€€If€the€prisoner€subsequently€violates€one€of€the€conditions,€theÏGovernor€has€the€power€to€revoke€the€commutation.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€ex€rel.€GarvinÐ 0Ð ÐShepardóó,€1990€WL€78944,€at€*3.Ð  À ÐÌà@é é ®àò òC.€€Revocation€of€Appellantððs€Commutationó ó€ˆÐ    ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€the€State€concedes€that€although€Appellantððs€original€ninety„¼nine€year€sentence€had€not€expired,€his€commuted€sentence€of€twenty€years€hadÏexpired€before€the€Governor€revoked€the€commutation.€€The€State€also€concedesÏthat€if€the€revocation€was€invalid,€Appellantððs€additional€twelve€year€sentence€hasÏexpired€and€he€is€entitled€to€be€released€from€custody.€€Thus,€the€outcome€of€thisÏcase€depends€on€whether€the€Governor€has€the€power€to€revoke€a€conditionalÏcommutation€when€a€prisoner€violates€the€conditions€during€the€term€of€theÏoriginal€sentence,€even€though€the€period€of€the€commuted€sentence€hasÏexpired.€€We€conclude€that€the€Governor€does€have€this€power.ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€Governor€may€revoke€a€conditional€commutationÏwhen€a€prisoner€violates€the€conditions€at€any€time€before€the€term€of€the€originalÏsentence€expires.€€Indeed,€that€is€the€express€holding€of€the€only€reportedÏTennessee€case€that€is€directly€on€point.€€In€òòWhite€v.€Stateóó,€717€S.W.2d€309Ð  2À(* Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€the€prisonerððs€original€ninety„nine€year€sentence€hadÏbeen€commuted€to€ð ðtime€servedðð€on€the€condition€that€he€ð ðobey€all€rules€andÏregulations€of€the€authority€having€custody€of€him,€lead€the€life€of€a€good€citizen,Ïobey€all€the€laws€of€the€Nation,€States,€and€Municipalities€and€shall€not€be€guiltyÐ à9€02 Ðof€other€conduct,€in€the€opinion€of€the€Governor,€improper€and€illegal.ðð€€TheÏprisoner€was€subsequently€convicted€of€another€crime,€and€the€Governor€revokedÏhis€commutation.€€Thereafter,€the€prisoner€appealed€the€revocation€of€hisÏcommutation,€claiming€that€the€revocation€was€invalid€because€the€Governor€hadÏno€power€to€revoke€his€commutation€after€his€commuted€sentence€expired.€€AsÏsupport€for€his€proposition,€the€prisoner€relied€on€òòRowell€v.€Duttonóó,€688€S.W.2dÐ °  Ð474€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985),€in€which€this€Court€held€that€the€Governor€could€notÏrevoke€a€commutation€after€the€original€sentence€had€expired.€€This€CourtÏrejected€the€prisonerððs€contention€and€held€that€because€the€prisonerððsÏcommutation€was€expressly€conditioned€on€his€good€behavior€for€the€term€of€theÏoriginal€sentence,€the€Governor€had€the€power€to€revoke€the€commutation€whenÏthe€prisoner€breached€the€condition.€€òòWhiteóó,€717€S.W.2d€at€310.€€In€so€holding,Ð °P Ðthis€Court€distinguished€òòRowellóó€by€noting€that€the€commutation€in€òòRowellóó€was€notÐ   @ Ðconditional.€€òòWhiteóó,€717€S.W.2d€at€310.Ð "0 ÐÌà ` àDespite€Appellantððs€assertion€to€the€contrary,€the€holding€of€this€Court€inÐ p& ÐòòWhiteóó€has€never€been€overruled€or€modified.€€In€òòState€ex€rel.€Garvin€Shepardóó,Ð `(  Ð1990€WL€78944,€this€Court€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€when€it€dismissedÏAppellantððs€previous€petition€for€habeas€corpus€relief€in€which€he€essentiallyÏmade€the€exact€same€claim€that€he€is€making€in€this€case.€€In€so€holding,€thisÏCourt€stated€that€because€Appellantððs€commutation€was€expressly€conditionedÏon€his€good€behavior€for€the€term€of€his€original€ninety„nine€year€sentence,€theÏGovernor€had€the€power€to€revoke€the€conditional€commutation€at€any€timeÏbefore€the€ninety„nine€year€sentence€expired.€€1990€WL€78944,€at€*3.€€In€soÏholding,€this€Court€distinguished€òòRowellóó€by€noting€that€the€revocation€in€òòRowellóóÐ à7€.0 Ðoccurred€after€the€prisonerððs€original€sentence€had€already€expired€while€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðrevocation€of€Appellantððs€commutation€occurred€long€before€his€original€sentenceÏexpired.€€1990€WL€78944,€at€*3.€€In€òòCarroll€v.€Raneyóó,€868€S.W.2d€721€(Tenn.Ð P ð ÐCrim.€App.€1993),€this€Court€held€that€a€prisoner€was€entitled€to€an€evidentiaryÏhearing€on€his€petition€for€habeas€corpus€relief€so€that€the€trial€court€couldÏdetermine€whether€his€sentence€had€expired€before€the€Governor€had€revokedÏhis€commutation.€€This€Court€cited€òòWhiteóó€and€stated€that€the€trial€court€shouldÐ °  Ðdetermine€whether€the€commutation€was€conditional€because€ð ð[u]nless€thereÏwere€specific€conditions€attached€to€the€original€commutation,€the€petitioner€mayÏbe€entitled€to€release.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€723ð!ð24.Ð à€ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€relies€on€òòRicks€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð À` Ð1994),€for€the€proposition€that€this€Court€has€abandoned€the€rule€on€revocationÏof€conditional€commutations€as€recited€in€òòWhiteóó,€òòState€ex€rel.€Garvin€Shepherdóó,Ð   @ Ðand€òòCarrollóó.€€In€òòRicksóó,€the€prisonerððs€original€eighty„five€year€sentence€had€beenÐ "0 Ðcommuted€to€forty€years€on€the€condition€that€he€was€to€be€ð ðunder€parole€and/orÏcommutation€supervision€by€the€Boards€of€Paroles€until€the€expiration€of€hisÏoriginal€sentence.ðð€€The€Governor€subsequently€revoked€the€commutation€afterÏthe€Board€of€Paroles€recommended€revocation€because€the€prisoner€had€violatedÏhis€parole.€€The€prisoner€claimed€on€appeal€that€the€revocation€was€invalidÏbecause€the€Governor€had€revoked€his€commutation€after€the€commutedÏsentence€had€expired.€€This€Court€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€the€prisonerððs€petitionÏfor€habeas€corpus€relief€after€it€concluded€that€the€revocation€was€valid€becauseÏit€occurred€before€the€commuted€sentence€had€expired.€€òòId.óó€at€392ð!ð93.€€ThisÐ 4 *, ÐCourt€then€noted€that€because€the€prisonerððs€commuted€sentence€had€notÏexpired€before€revocation,€there€was€no€need€to€address€the€question€of€whetherÏthe€revocation€would€have€been€valid€if€it€had€occurred€after€the€commutedÐ Ð9p02 Ðsentence€had€expired.€€òòId.óó€at€393€n.23.€€This€Court€stated,€ð ð[i]f€the€appellant€hadÐ `  Ðestablished€that€the€commuted€sentence€of€forty€(40)€years€had€expired,€thisÏissue€would€have€to€be€resolved.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ @ à ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€this€Courtððs€statement€in€òòRicksóó€that€this€issueÐ  À Ðwould€have€to€be€ð ðresolvedðð€if€the€commuted€sentence€had€expired€means€thatÏthis€Court€had€abandoned€the€rule€recited€in€the€previous€cases.€€We€do€notÏagree€that€the€dicta€in€òòRicksóó€changed€the€established€law€as€recited€in€thisÐ ð  ÐCourtððs€previous€cases.€€It€is€evident€that€the€òòRicksóó€dicta€meant€that€if€theÐ à€ Ðprisonerððs€commuted€sentence€had€expired€before€the€revocation,€this€CourtÏwould€have€had€to€ð ðaddressðð€the€issue,€not€that€the€issue€had€never€beenÏð ðresolvedðð.€€Indeed,€in€òòWilliam€D.€Carroll€v.€Fred€Raneyóó,€No.€02C01„9510„CC„Ð °P Ð003,€1996€WL€219152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€2,€1996),€òòaffirmed€onÐ   @ Ðother€groundsóó,€953€S.W.2d€657€(Tenn.€1997),€this€Court€reversed€the€judgmentÐ "0 Ðof€the€trial€court€and€dismissed€the€prisonerððs€petition€for€habeas€corpus€reliefÏafter€holding€that€the€Governor€had€the€power€to€revoke€the€conditionalÏcommutation€when€the€prisoner€violated€the€conditions,€even€though€theÏcommuted€sentence€had€expired.€€Indeed,€this€Court€cited€òòState€ex€rel.€GarvinÐ P*ð " ÐShepherdóó€for€the€proposition€that€because€the€commutation€was€conditional,€theÐ @,à"$ ÐGovernor€retained€the€power€to€revoke€it€until€the€term€of€the€original€sentenceÏhad€expired.€€òòId.óó,€1996€WL€219152,€at€*3ð!ð4.Ð  0À&( ÐÌà ` àAppellant€also€relies€on€one€sentence€from€the€recent€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€case€of€€òòCarroll€v.€Raneyóó,€953€S.W.2d€657€(Tenn.€1997),€to€support€hisÐ ð5,. Ðproposition€that€the€Governor€cannot€revoke€a€commutation€once€the€commutedÏsentence€has€expired.€€In€òòCarrollóó,€the€supreme€court€stated,€ð ðUpon€a€finding€thatÐ Ð9p02 Ða€condition€[of€a€conditional€commutation]€has€been€violated,€the€commutedÏsentence€may€be€revoked€by€the€Governor,€provided€that€the€sentence€has€œñMñnotÏñMñexpired.ðð›€òòId.óó€at€660€(citing€òòRowell€v.€Duttonóó,€688€S.W.2d€474,€477€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð @ à ÐApp.€1985)).€€We€do€not€agree€with€Appellant€that€this€somewhat€ambiguousÏstatement€changed€the€established€law€regarding€the€revocation€of€conditionalÏcommutations.€€As€previously€explained€by€this€Court€in€òòState€ex€rel.€GarvinÐ °  ÐShepherdóó,€the€sentence€that€had€expired€in€òòRowellóó€was€the€original€sentence,€notÐ    Ða€conditional€commuted€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€ex€rel.€Garvin€Shepherdóó,€1990€WLÐ ð  Ð78944€at,€*3.€€Thus,€the€supreme€courtððs€citation€to€òòRowellóó,€indicates€that€theÐ à€ Ðð ðsentenceðð€the€supreme€court€was€referring€to€is€an€ð ðoriginal€sentenceðð€ratherÏthan€a€ð ðcommuted€sentenceðð.€€We€do€not€think€that€the€supreme€court€intendedÏto€make€a€major€change€in€the€established€law€regarding€the€revocation€ofÏconditional€commutations€in€such€an€off„hand€manner.€€Indeed,€the€TennesseeÏCourt€of€Appeals€has€recently€examined€this€same€issue€and€has€come€to€theÏsame€conclusion.€€òòSeeóó€òòJames€A.€Lemay€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01„A„01„9807„CH„00397,Ð €$  Ð1999€WL€430475,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€Nashville,€June€29,€1999)€(holding€thatÏthe€Governor€may€revoke€a€conditional€commutation€at€any€time€before€theÏoriginal€sentence€expires€and€stating€that€the€supreme€courtððs€statement€inÏòòCarrollóó€does€not€alter€this€rule).ñDññGñœ×ƒ ×ñGññGñ׃×ñGññDññDñ׃×ñDñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР@,à"$ Їà@ØØ)®àò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ `  ÐÌà ` àIn€conclusion,€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€habeas€corpus€relief.€€TheÏestablished€law€in€Tennessee€is€that€the€Governor€may€revoke€a€conditionalÏcommutation€any€time€the€ñFññEñœñEññFñcommutee€violates€the€conditions€before€the€term€ofÏthe€original€sentence€has€expired.€òòSeeóó€€òòWhiteóó,€717€S.W.2d€at€310;€òòState€ex€rel.Ð  À  ÐGarvin€Shepardóó,€1990€WL€78944,€at€*3;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòCarrollóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€723ð!ð24;Ð °  ÐòòWilliam€D.€Carrollóó,€1996€WL€219152,€at€*3„4;€òòJames€A.€Lemayóó,€1999€WL€430475,Ð    Ðat€*3;€òòWhite€v.€Livesayóó,€715€F.Supp.€202,€203€(M.D.€Tenn.€1989).€€BecauseÐ ð ÐGovernor€McWherter€revoked€Appellantððs€commutation€before€the€ninety„nineÏyear€term€of€the€original€sentence€had€expired,€the€revocation€was€valid.€ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE