ÿWPCR …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÌv~évÓg D3: 0@m AO­Æü 0D D/ B5˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ÔEÕÖEרEÙÚÛDÜeÝÓ€Úƒç"3|xè2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òJanuary€21,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€¥XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1997ÌÌ€ÌÌÓ  ÓSTEVE€CARROLL,à àà àà à)€€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9611„CR„00420à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellant,ò òà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€JOHNSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€LYNN€BROWN,€JUDGEó ó€€Ìò òHOWARD€CARLTON,€WARDEN,à à)€€€€€€€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó ó€€€€€€€Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àò òà à)€€€€€€€(HABEAS€CORPUS)€Ìó óÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òSTEVE€CARROLL,€òòpro€seóóà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óN.E.C.C.€#256046€à àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€5000€ÌMountain€City,€TN€37683ò òà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYAN€Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òDAVID€CROCKETT€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRoute€19,€Box€99Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohnson€City,€TN€37601€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Petitioner,€Steve€Carroll,€appeals€as€of€right€the€trial€courtððs€dismissalÏof€his€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€€Petitioner€argues€four€issues€in€this€òòproóóÏòòseóó€appeal:€(1)€the€indictments€were€defective€in€that€they€were€not€properlyÏsigned€by€the€District€Attorney;€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€petitionÏbefore€the€Stateððs€response€was€filed;€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€differentÏclasses€of€offenses€to€be€included€in€the€same€indictment;€and€(4)€the€trial€courtÏviolated€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„21„108€in€failing€to€grant€the€writ.€€We€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àOn€June€21,€1995,€the€Petitioner€was€indicted€by€the€Campbell€CountyÏGrand€Jury€for€one€count€of€aggravated€rape,€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexualÏbattery,€three€counts€of€aggravated€child€abuse,€one€count€of€rape€of€a€child,Ïone€count€of€incest,€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€assault.€€Upon€pleas€of€Ïguilty,€the€Petitioner€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€child€abuse€andÏsentenced€to€ten€years€in€prison.€€ÌÌà àOn€October€23,€1996,€the€Petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€habeasÏcorpus€relief€in€the€Johnson€County€Criminal€Court.€€He€alleged€that€hisÏconvictions€were€void€because€the€indictment€did€not€contain€the€requisiteÍsignature€of€the€district€attorney.€€Before€the€State€filed€a€response,€the€trial€courtÏdismissed€the€petition€on€October€29,€1996.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€theÏpetition€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€After€theÏPetitioner€appealed€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€to€this€Court,€the€State€filed€a€ÌÌÌmotion€to€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€consideration€of€the€issue€raised€by€theÏPetitioner€in€his€petition,€which€motion€was€granted€on€January€28,€1997.€€TheÏtrial€court€subsequently€entered€an€order€on€March€25,€1997,€dismissing€theÏpetition€because€a€ð ðdefect€in€an€indictment€is€a€matter€which€must€be€addressedÏin€the€trial€court€and€on€direct€appeal€or€by€petition€for€post„conviction€writ€[sic]€inÏthe€trial€court.€€It€is€not€grounds€for€habeas€corpus.€€Such€does€not€removeÏjurisdiction€from€any€criminal€court€of€this€[S]tate.ðð€€The€Petitioner€now€brings€thisÏappeal€of€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€habeas€corpus€relief.€€€€ÌÓÓÌÌÓÓà àIt€is€a€well„established€principle€of€law€that€the€remedy€of€habeas€corpusÏis€limited€in€its€nature€and€its€scope.€òòArcher€v.€Stateóó,€851€S.W.2d€157,€161„62Ï(Tenn.€1993);€òòPassarella€v.€Stateóó,€891€S.W.2d€619,€626€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€In€Tennessee,€habeas€corpus€relief€is€available€only€if€ð ðððit€appears€uponÏthe€face€of€the€judgment€or€the€record€of€the€proceedings€upon€which€theÏjudgment€is€renderedðð€that€a€convicting€court€was€without€jurisdiction€or€authorityÍto€sentence€a€defendant,€or€that€a€defendantððs€sentence€of€imprisonment€orÏother€restraint€has€expired.ðð€€òòArcheróó,€851€S.W.2d€at€164€(citation€omitted€inÏoriginal).€€The€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€establishing€either€a€void€judgment€orÏan€illegal€confinement€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòPassarellaóó,€891ÏS.W.2d€at€627.€€Moreover,€where€a€judgment€is€not€void,€but€is€merely€voidable,Ïsuch€judgment€may€not€be€collaterally€attacked€in€a€suit€for€habeas€corpus€relief.€ÏòòIdóó.€€ÓÓÌÌÌÌÌà@ àI.€€Alleged€Defective€IndictmentsÌÌÌà àÌÓÓà àPetitioner€first€argues€that€his€convictions€are€void€because€each€count€ofÏthe€indictment€was€not€signed€by€the€District€Attorney€General.€€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„13„103€requires€a€district€attorney€to€sign€theÏcharging€document€before€it€is€sent€to€the€grand€jury.€€Our€supreme€court€hasÏalso€stated€that€no€indictment€should€be€sent€to€the€grand€jury€ð ðwithout€theÏsanction€and€approbation€of€the€solicitor„general,€proved€by€his€signature€òòonÏsome€part€of€the€billóó.ðð€€òòFout€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€(3€Hayw.)€€98,€99€(1816)Ï(emphasis€added).€€Clearly€a€signature€is€required,€but€one€is€not€necessarilyÏrequired€to€be€on€each€count€of€an€indictment.€€In€òòState€v.€Lockettóó,€our€supremeÏcourt€explained,€ð ðIt€is€not€essential€that€the€signature€of€the€officer€should€beÍplaced€at€the€end€of€the€indictment.€€It€is€sufficient€if€it€appear€on€some€other€partÏof€the€paper,€provided€it€appear€beyond€doubt€that€the€attestation€relates€to€theÏindictment€and€every€part€thereof,€and€identifies€the€same€as€the€act€andÏaccusation€of€the€government,€done€through€its€sworn€officer.ðð€€50€Tenn.€(3ÏHeisk.)€274„75€(1871).€€The€court€also€stated€that€it€is€not€ð ðabsolutely€necessaryÏthat€the€signature€should€be€at€the€conclusion€of€the€bill;€but€it€must€be€on€it,€andÏmust€show€that€it€is€intended€to€cover€all€the€counts€contained€therein.ðð€€òòIdóó.€atÏ275.€€ÌÌà àThe€District€Attorney€General€in€the€instant€case€signed€the€second€pageÏof€a€two„page€indictment.€€The€counts€in€the€indictment€were€consecutivelyÏnumbered,€starting€on€page€one€and€continuing€through€page€two.€€It€can€beÏlogically€reasoned€that€his€signature€was€plainly€intended€to€cover€all€the€countsÏcontained€in€the€two„page€indictment.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€issue.ÌÓÓà@ àII.€Alleged€Error€in€Dismissing€Petition€Before€Ìà@ àState€Filed€ResponseÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€Petitionerððs€petition€for€habeas€corpus€reliefÏbefore€the€Stateððs€response€was€filed€because€Petitioner€had€not€shown€thatÏhis€conviction€was€void€or€that€his€term€of€imprisonment€had€expired.€€InÏòòPassarellaóó,€this€Court€held€that€if€it€is€clear€from€the€face€of€the€petition€that€theÏpetitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief,€then€the€trial€court€is€not€required€to€hold€a€hearingÍor€inquire€into€the€allegations€in€the€petition,€but€may€dismiss€the€petitionÏsummarily.€€891€S.W.2d€at€627.€€Petitionerððs€allegations€in€the€instant€case,€ifÏmeritorious,€would€render€his€conviction€voidable€rather€than€void,€thus€makingÏthe€issues€inappropriate€for€habeas€corpus€relief.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€hadÏthe€authority€to€summarily€dismiss€the€petition.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌÓÓà@ àIII.€€Alleged€Error€in€Allowing€Different€Classes€Ìà@ àof€Offenses€in€Same€IndictmentÌÌÌÓÓà àPetitioner€argues€that€the€Campbell€County€Criminal€Court€erred€in€placingÏdifferent€classes€of€offenses€in€the€same€indictment.€€This€Court€finds€that€thisÏissue€is€not€appropriate€for€habeas€corpus€review€because€even€if€the€issueÏhad€merit,€the€conviction€would€not€be€void€but€merely€voidable.€€òòSeeóóÏòòPassarellaóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€627.€Ìà àà àà àÌà àRule€14€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€forÏseverance€of€offenses€in€appropriate€cases.€€It€provides€that€a€defendantððsÏmotion€for€severance€of€offenses€must€be€made€before€trial€unless€it€is€basedÏon€a€ground€not€known€prior€to€trial.€€In€this€case,€Petitioner€pled€guilty€to€two€ofÏthe€offenses€in€the€indictment.€€Not€only€is€the€issue€waived€by€failure€to€file€aÏmotion€for€severance€prior€to€the€guilty€plea,€we€see€absolutely€no€prejudice€toÏDefendant€if€consolidation€of€the€offenses€in€one€indictment€was€improper€due€toÍthe€fact€that€Petitioner€pled€guilty€to€only€two€of€the€multiple€offenses€in€theÏindictment.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓIV.€Alleged€Failure€of€Trial€Court€in€Refusing€Ìto€Entertain€Petitionerððs€Petition€€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€Petitioner€alleges€again€that€his€conviction€was€void,Ïand€that€it€was€therefore€unconstitutional€for€the€trial€court€to€not€entertain€hisÏpetition.€€He€also€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€wasÏarbitrary,€callous€and€made€with€deliberate€indifference€as€to€his€rights.€€InÏsupport€of€his€argument€that€it€was€unconstitutional,€Petitioner€cites€Rule€58€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€However,€this€rule€applies€to€properÏentry€of€judgments€with€notice€given€to€the€parties.€€Therefore,€this€rule€isÏinapplicable€to€the€issues€and€case€at€bar.€€Ìà àÌà àRegarding€Petitionerððs€argument€that€his€conviction€is€void,€this€issue€hasÏbeen€reviewed€above€and€decided€against€the€Petitioner.€€Furthermore,€we€doÏnot€find€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€to€be€arbitrary€or€ð ðcallous.ðð€€The€trial€courtÏwas€justified€in€dismissing€Petitionerððs€petition,€as€his€conviction€was€€not€voidÏand€his€sentence€had€not€expired.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àFinding€no€merit€in€the€issues€raised€by€Petitioner,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judge