WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0@ 0D  0J 0T^ 0^ 0h 0rx 0| 0f 0 1u| 0d BUU>rB)DCU* D3F AMy 0@v~vv AOI 0D^ D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DDDDDDDDDӀԡ 3|x(8(2$ !  4X   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`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd<  9p`(Arial'dxd-(C << G !&  ))   YYY FILED)XAugust15,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  ("$      !#d#&   $ 4  X        &)Thepetitionerchallengesthe"TennesseeSentencingReformAct...anditspredecessorstatutes."Welimitourdiscussiontothe1982Act,theActunderwhichthepetitionerwassentenced.Wenote,however,thatthe1989Actcontainsprovisionsthataresimilartothechallengedportionsofthe1982Act.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &  `   4   4  X \RA'\  )\RA'\R+,(A1-j|`  `@Rߛ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLEAPRIL1997SESSION  KIMLAMARWITT,   * C.C.A.#01C019606CR00274 Appellant,   * DAVIDSONCOUNTYVS.     * Hon.J.RandallWyatt,Jr.,JudgeSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  * (HabeasCorpus) Appellee.   *ForAppellant:    ForAppellee:RobertJ.Mendes    CharlesW.Burson209TenthAvenueSouth   AttorneyGeneral&ReporterCumminsStation,Suite507  450JamesRobertsonParkwayNashville,TN37203   Nashville,TN37243      KarenM.Yacuzzo      AssistantAttorneyGeneral      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN37243      KatrinNovakMiller      AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral      222SecondAvenueNorth      WashingtonSquare,Suite500      Nashville,TN372011649OPINIONFILED:_______________________AFFIRMEDGARYR.WADE,JUDGE    7FXXdXXd7OPINION       Thepetitioner,KimLamarWitt,appealsthetrialcourt'sdenialofhispetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.In1987,thepetitionerwasconvictedofarmedrobberyandassaultwiththeintenttocommitfirstdegreemurder;thetrialcourtimposedtwoconcurrent,RangeIIsentencesoflifeimprisonment.Thepetitionerseekshabeascorpusreliefontwodifferentgrounds: 4      (1)the1989SentencingReformActanditspredecessorsviolatetheSeparationofPowersClauseoftheTennesseeConstitution;and(2)the1989SentencingReformActanditspredecessorsviolatethedeterminatesentencinglaw. 4   4  X Afteranevidentiaryhearingontheissues,thetrialcourtdeniedthepetition.Weaffirm.  Thehabeascorpusremedyinthisstateislimited.Thewritmaybegrantedonlywhereapetitionerhasestablishedlackofjurisdictionfortheorderofconfinementorthatheisotherwiseentitledtoimmediatereleasebecauseoftheexpirationofhissentence.SeeUsseryv.Avery,432S.W.2d656(Tenn.1968);Stateexrel.Wadev.Norvell,443S.W.2d839(Tenn.Crim.App.1969).Habeascorpusreliefisavailableinthisstateonlywhenitappearsonthefaceofthejudgmentortherecordthatthetrialcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoconvictorsentencethedefendantorthatthesentenceofimprisonmenthasotherwiseexpired.Archerv.State,851S.W.2d157,164(Tenn.1993);Pottsv.State,833ϢS.W.2d60,62(Tenn.1992).  ThisactiondoesnotallegethattheHamiltonCountycourtlackedjurisdictionorthatthepetitioner'ssentencehasexpired.Thus,thepetitionerhasfailedtostateaclaimforhabeascorpusrelief.SeeMonroeE.Davisv.JimmyHarrison,Warden,No.02C019607CC00242,slipop.at4(Tenn.Crim.App.,atJackson,July2,1997)(holdingtheseidenticalchallengestothe1989SentencingActdonotstateaclaimforhabeascorpusrelief).  Nevertheless,wewilladdressthemeritsofthearguments.First,thepetitionerarguestheSentencingAct .   כviolatestheSeparationofPowersClauseoftheTennesseeConstitution,whichprovidesasfollows: 4      Sec.1.Divisionofpowers.ThepowersoftheGovernmentshallbedividedintothreedistinctdepartments:theLegislative,Executive,andJudicial.Sec.2.Limitationofpowers.Nopersonorpersonsbelongingtooneofthesedepartmentsshallexerciseanyofthepowersproperlybelongingtoeitheroftheothers,exceptinthecaseshereindirectedorpermitted. 4   4  X Tenn.Const.art.II,1,2.  The1982SentencingActrequiresthetrialjudgeto"determinetheappropriaterangeofsentence."Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(a)(1982repl.).Therangedeterminationcontrolsreleaseeligibility.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035501(c)(1982repl.).Thepetitionerarguesthatbecausethetrialcourthadtodeterminetherange,thetrialcourtimpermissibly"dictatestotheexecutivewhenanoffenderisfirsteligibleforparole."Hecontendsthatthelegislativebranchhasdelegatedtotheexecutivebranchtheexclusivepowertocalculateinitialparoleeligibilitydates.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4028101through125(1982repl.).Wemustdisagree.  Oursupremecourthasheldthat"[t]heoretically,thelegislativepoweristheauthoritytomake,order,andrepeal[;]theexecutive,thattoadministerandenforce[;]andthejudicial,thattointerpretandapply,laws."Richardsonv.Young,125S.W.664,668(Tenn.1910)(quotedwithapprovalinUnderwoodv.State,529S.W.2d45,47(Tenn.1975)).Ourcourthasrecentlyacknowledgedthatthe"authoritytograntparolesisnotjudicialinnaturebutisadministrative."MonroeE.Davis,slipop.at3(citingWoodsv.State,169S.W.558(Tenn.1914)).Nevertheless,oursupremecourthasobserved,"itisimpossibletopreserveperfectlythetheoreticallinesofdemarcationbetweenthe[three]branchesofgovernment."Underwood,529S.W.2dat47."Thereisnecessarilyacertainamountofoverlapping.Thethreedepartmentsareinterdependent."Id.󀀀  InDavis,ourcourtrejectedanargumentidenticaltothatofthepetitioner,ruling"thatatrialcourt'sdeterminationofsentencingrangedoesnotinfringeuponthepowersoftheexecutivebranch."Slipop.at3.SeealsoSteveL.Bryantv.State,No.01C019605CR00190,slipop.at3(Tenn.Crim.App.,atNashville,April24,1997).  Thepetitionernextarguesthatthe1982Actviolatesthedeterminatesentencinglaw.HeassertsthatthesentencingrangesalongwithreleaseeligibilitypercentagesestablishindeterminatesentencesinviolationofTenn.CodeAnn.4035211(1982repl.),whichprovides"[i]nfixingasentence...,thecourtshallimposeaspecificsentencelengthforeachoffense....Thereshallbenoindeterminatesentences."  Paroledoesnotterminateaprisoner'ssentence.SeeHowellv.State,569S.W.2d428,432(Tenn.1978).Whiletheprisonerisreleasedfromconfinement,thesentencecontinuesandtheparolee"isstillinthecustodyofthepenalauthoritiesoftheState."Doylev.Hampton,340S.W.2d891,893(Tenn.1960).Paroledoesnotcausethesentencetoexpireorterminate.Id.Thus,thepossibilityofparoledoesnotcauseasentencetobeindeterminate.Rangeclassificationsandreleaseeligibilitydeterminationsdonotcreatethepossibilityofindeterminatesentences.SeealsoSteveL.Bryant,slipop.at4(rulingthat"[p]aroledoesnotcauseasentencetoexpireorterminatebutisaconditionalreleasefrommorerestrictiveconfinement").    Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.      __________________________________      GaryR.Wade,JudgeCONCUR:_______________________________DavidH.Welles,Judge_______________________________CurwoodWitt,Judge