ÿWPCD /M›ÔT‘¤ßøÆ¥‡v5•ü²üwøÃ²ÿz/M´‘eÀ^çùp±öPÚÚ-{Û¥D³—>‚*2ZÂuAÊÁn3(¸¯k¿ˆšü“NÍ"±G ]yõ­‹»¥P·tOàó¿Ê`­n"NÄÄ/‰8ûµyŸÔ|YÄÈ©¡ÀHª àœäî¾Ç@Õ>Ú ×zA® Ê@ºIÀÚxêkÿn3VÞoÛÎÙ¥—çΫ؎°¢ìŠŠÍa˜äûè@ÔÍÚ,ß3HãbÏiodþM¶TÂrj­W;±âºÍ2ã?]ß™:ó-2 Õƒn]Ì<Æ£öMzÿÇ6"k/(( bÕÂ8'yÎé%Ê 2õš×êlßìšY©žs*w¡EžL™Ùœ)³ocZ8Ù¢FˆXCÀEb¨ª=Çé›41ó ‹¥Ä˜¼bzRÖ¢PÖ¼¢ô¼ª§—K1Rý¢jn¶k'”Lc›@ª6²6ž4 ß ”Ó«cÓrÑâQ¥F%FÅøer×óDX™R.ëUß©au™—¼ºà´]0`"ÿÓ$<ñÉ6/²Dâq$mW3âz%5^ÞÎ>d%vãàG„Å_; ò…VàÂì‘WH)9‡€sLX Iì‚ Í Q ù‹‚}]]b %\Nb 0ˆdUNìì 0D: z~ zøÒr ÒD ^  w" 4& Æ: Æ ÆÆ ÆŒ RNac meE|#Á~?òGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGb999999999999999999999999999999999999 0ëAAAA B,, 0¤I D3í D-  0KMM AS˜Æë 0¤± 0DU A«™»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptT¤b)â •jW)ð(¤k3Œ'¨Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0  èÝ ƒR»-$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœLò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnder€current€law,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„205(c),€"[a]€petition€for€habeas€corpus€may€be€treated€as€aÐ ° Ðpetition€[for€post„conviction€relief]€when€the€relief€and€procedure€authorized€by€this€part€appears€adequate€andÐ xÈ Ðappropriate,€notwithstanding€anything€to€the€contrary€in€title€29,€chapter€21,€or€any€other€statute."€€- ù-(|G2»-$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ê¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôœLò»»Ô d(|39)$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ê¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|39)$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ê¤»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ê¤»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ꤻ»»ÔÑ8€ùXXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î«gê¤ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@))"ìàHEARD€AT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ꤻîî«g #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àSeptember€12,€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XùX»¼ê¤ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ꤻXXù#ÔWILLIAM€COLLINS€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XùX»¼ê¤Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€20408€€Lynn€W.€Brown,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ç ` AßÐ è 8  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02759„CCA„R3„PCÐ ç7  ÐNovember€2,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ×'  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<Æ` AßÐ Ç  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓBecause€the€trial€court€properly€treated€a€habeas€corpus€petition€as€one€for€post„conviction€relief€andÐ Æ  Ðbecause€the€statute€of€limitations€barred€any€review€of€constitutional€issues,€the€petition€was€properlyÐ ¶ Ðdismissed.€€Ð ¦ö ÐÓ³ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ †Ö ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ꤻàXù‡#ÔÔ‡XùX.¼ê¤ÔGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€òòóówhich€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð f¶ ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€óóJJ.,€joined.€€Ô#†¼ꤻXXùq#ÔÔ‡XùX»¼ê¤ÔÐ V¦ ÐÌWilliam€Collins,€Mountain€City,€Tennessee,€pro€se.€Ð 6† ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€Patricia€C.€Ô_ÔKussmannÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð f ÐVictor€Ô_ÔVaughnÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð V ÐÔ#†¼ꤻXXù‘#ÔÔ‡XùX»¼ê¤ÔÓBÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ꤻXXùT #ÔÐ æ6 ÐÓ  ÓÌÔ€XùX»¼ê¤Ôà  àThe€petitioner,€William€Collins,€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus€and,€in€theÐ î > Ðalternative,€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€treated€the€petition€as€one€for€post„conviction€reliefÐ Þ!.  Ðand€entered€an€order€of€dismissal.€€The€record€demonstrates€that€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€toÐ Î"! Ðamend€along€with€several€other€motions€after€the€order€of€dismissal€was€entered.€€While€thoseÐ ¾#" Ðmotions€were€originally€denied,€the€trial€court's€ruling€was€later€set€aside,€after€which€the€petitionerÐ ®$þ# Ðfiled€a€notice€of€appeal.€€Because€there€has€been€no€disposition€by€the€trial€court€of€any€of€the€issuesÐ ž%î $ Ðpresented€after€the€entry€of€the€order€of€dismissal,€those€issues€will€not€be€considered€in€this€appeal.€Ð Ž&Þ!% ÐÌà  àThe€single€issue€presented€for€review€is€whether€the€petition€was€properly€dismissed€asÐ n(¾#' Ðbarred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€The€judgment€dismissing€the€petition€is€affirmed.Ð ^)®$( ÐÌà  àOn€May€17,€1984,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€the€September€19,€1980,€first€degreeÐ >+Ž&* Ðmurder€of€James€Bailey.€€The€victim€was€shot€in€the€neck€by€a€.38€caliber€Derringer.€€The€petitionerÐ .,~'+ Ðreceived€a€life€sentence.€€On€direct€appeal,€the€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed.€€òòState€v.Ð -n(,ýú ÐÔ_ÔCollinsóó,€698€S.W.2d€87€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÐ ° Ðsupreme€court€was€denied€on€September€3,€1985.€€Later,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„Ð  ð Ðconviction€relief,€arguing€that€the€jury€instructions€on€malice€violated€his€constitutional€rights€andÐ à Ðclaiming€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€confront€witnesses.€€The€trial€court€denied€relief.€€On€directÐ €Ð Ðappeal,€this€court€affirmed.€€òòWilliam€T.€Collins,€Jr.€v.€Stateóó,€No.€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ pÀ ÐKnoxville,€July€24,€1987).€€Permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€was€denied€on€October€12,Ð ` ° Ð1987.€€The€petitioner€filed€another€post„conviction€petition,€alleging€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ P   Ðcounsel.€€The€trial€court€denied€relief.€€This€court€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòWilliam€T.€Collins,€Jr.Ð @  Ðv.€Stateóó,€No.€279€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€5,€1991).€€Application€for€permission€toÐ 0 € Ðappeal€was€denied€April€5,€1991.Ð  p  ÐÌà  àThis€petition,€filed€September€13,€1993,€included,€among€other€issues,€allegations€that€theÐ P  Ðjury€instructions€on€malice€violated€the€petitioner's€constitutional€rights€and€that€the€petitioner€wasÐ ð@  Ðdenied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€post„conviction.€€Both€the€petitioner€and€theÐ à0  Ðstate€filed€several€other€pleadings.€€The€petitioner€made€no€claim€that€he€had€either€served€hisÐ Ð  Ðsentence€or€that€the€trial€court€was€without€jurisdiction€to€enter€the€judgment.€€On€August€3,€1998,Ð À ÐJudge€Arden€Hill€denied€relief,€concluding€that€the€petition€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€Ð ° ÐThe€trial€judge€also€ruled€that€as€thirteenth€juror€in€the€original€trial,€he€was€satisfied€with€the€verdictÐ  ð Ðof€first€degree€murder.€€In€September€of€1993,€the€petitioner€was€subject€to€the€following€statute€ofÐ à Ðlimitations:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€prisoner€in€custody€under€sentence€of€a€court€of€this€state€mustÐ `° Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€under€this€chapter€within€three€(3)Ð P  Ðyears€of€the€date€of€the€final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€Ð @ Ðto€which€an€appeal€is€taken€or€consideration€of€such€petition€shall€beÐ 0€ Ðbarred.€€Ð p` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(repealed).Ð P ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„30„108׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€authorized€trial€courts€to€treat€a€petition€forÐ à0 Ðhabeas€corpus€as€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€"when€the€relief€and€procedure€authorized€by€Ð Ð  Ð[that]€chapter€appear[ed]€adequate€and€appropriate€.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„108€(repealed).€Ð À! ÐBecause€the€petitioner€asserted€no€grounds€for€habeas€corpus€relief,€the€trial€court,€in€our€view,Ð °"  Ðproperly€treated€the€petition€as€one€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Ð  #ð! ÐÌà  àWhen€a€petitioner€attempts€to€set€aside€a€conviction€because€of€the€abridgement€of€aÐ €%Ð # Ðconstitutional€right,€the€statutory€post„conviction€procedure€is€a€single€means€of€relief.€€òòLuttrell€v.Ð p&À!$ ÐStateóó,€644€S.W.2d€408€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€contrast,€it€is€well€settled€in€this€state€that€theÐ `'°"% Ðwrit€of€habeas€corpus,€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€29„21„101€to€29„21„130,€will€issue€only€inÐ P( #& Ðthe€case€of€a€void€judgment€or€to€free€a€prisoner€held€in€custody€after€his€term€of€imprisonment€hasÐ ° Ðexpired.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Hall€v.€Meadowsóó,€215€Tenn.€668,€389€S.W.2d€256,€259€(1965).€€Unlike€theÐ  ð Ðpost„conviction€petition,€the€purpose€of€a€habeas€corpus€petition€is€to€contest€a€void,€not€merelyÐ à Ðvoidable,€judgment.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Newsome€v.€Hendersonóó,€221€Tenn.€24,€424€S.W.2d€186,€189Ð €Ð Ð(1968).€€A€petitioner€cannot€collaterally€attack€a€facially€valid€conviction€in€a€habeas€corpusÐ pÀ Ðproceeding.€€òòPotts€v.€Stateóó,€833€S.W.2d€60,€62€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€ex€rel.€Holbrook€v.€Bomaróó,€211Ð ` ° ÐTenn.€243,€364€S.W.2d€887,€888€(1963).€€In€òòArcher€v.€Stateóó,€our€supreme€court€held€as€follows:€€Ð P   ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhen€the€restraint,€from€which€relief€is€sought€by€a€writ€of€habeasÐ 0 € Ðcorpus,€proceeds€from€a€judgment€erroneous€but€not€void,€the€writÐ  p  Ðwill€not€lie.€€Nor,€under€it,€can€the€party€impeach€a€judgment€asÐ `  Ðcontrary€to€the€facts.€€And,€in€general,€this€is€not€the€remedy€whereÐ P  Ðthe€imprisonment€is€on€judicial€process.€€But€where€the€sentence€isÐ ð@  Ðvoid,€not€merely€voidable,€or€the€term€of€imprisonment€under€it€hasÐ à0  Ðexpired,€relief€may€be€had€by€the€writ.€.€.€.€€[J]udicial€officers€.€.€.Ð Ð  Ðsometimes€use€the€writ€as€if€it€were€a€writ€of€error,€under€which€theyÐ À Ðmight€correct€the€errors€and€irregularities€of€other€tribunals.€€"AnyÐ ° Ðsuch€employment€of€the€writ€is€an€abuse."€€Ð ð` x` x ÐÌ851€S.W.2d€157,€161€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòState€ex€rel.€Karr€v.€Taxing€District€of€Shelby€Countyóó,Ð €Ð Ð84€Tenn.€(16€Lea)€240,€249„50€(1886)€(citations€omitted).€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àClearly,€the€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€relief.€€The€attack€on€the€conviction€is€collateralÐ P  Ðin€nature.€€The€1967€Act,€as€amended,€provided€for€a€three„year€statute€of€limitations€for€post„Ð @ Ðconviction€relief.€€òòAbston€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€487€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Because€our€supremeÐ 0€ Ðcourt€denied€the€petitioner's€application€for€permission€to€appeal€his€conviction€on€September€3,Ð  p Ð1985,€some€eight€years€prior€to€this€filing,€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€the€petition€wasÐ ` Ðfiled€beyond€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€Ð P ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€have€his€erroneous€jury€instruction€claimÐ à0 Ðconsidered€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(b)(1).€€That€is,€he€argues,€that€his€claim€is€"basedÐ Ð  Ðupon€a€final€ruling€of€an€appellate€court€establishing€a€constitutional€right€that€was€not€recognizedÐ À! Ðas€existing€at€the€time€of€trial€.€.€.€."€€In€òòSullivan€v.€Louisianaóó,€508€U.S.€275€(1993),€upon€which€theÐ °"  Ðpetitioner€relies,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€constitutionally€deficient€jury€instruction€onÐ  #ð! Ðreasonable€doubt€that€misstated€the€burden€of€proof€was€reversible€error,€not€subject€to€a€harmlessÐ $à" Ðerror€analysis.€€The€Court€observed€that€the€Constitution€requires€that€all€jury€verdicts€of€guilt€beÐ €%Ð # Ðreached€on€a€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€basis.€€òòId.óó€at€281.€€In€making€its€determination,€the€highÐ p&À!$ Ðcourt€ruled€as€follows:€€Ð `'°"% ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àInsofar€as€the€possibility€of€harmless„error€review€is€concerned,€theÐ @)$' Ðjury„instruction€error€in€this€case€is€quite€different€from€the€jury„Ð 0*€%( Ðinstruction€error€of€erecting€a€presumption€regarding€an€element€ofÐ  +p&) Ðthe€offense.€.€.€.€€€"[W]hen€a€jury€is€instructed€to€presume€malice€fromÐ ,`'* Ðpredicate€facts,€it€still€must€find€the€existence€of€those€facts€beyondÐ ° Ða€reasonable€doubt."€.€.€.€€A€reviewing€court€may€thus€be€able€toÐ  ð Ðconclude€that€the€presumption€played€no€significant€role€in€theÐ à Ðfinding€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€.€.€.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€280„81€(citations€omitted).€€The€petitioner€correctly€points€out€that€the€jury€instructions€onÐ ` ° Ðmalice€in€his€case€were€disapproved€of€in€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510€(1979),€which€held€Ð P   Ðunconstitutional€an€instruction€entitling€the€jury€to€presume€malice,€an€element€of€murder.€€TheÐ @  ÐSupreme€Court€reasoned€that€the€jury€might€consider€the€instruction€mandatory€and€thus€place€theÐ 0 € Ðburden€of€"disposing"€of€that€element€on€the€defendant.€€In€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€our€supreme€court€ruledÐ  p  Ðthat€such€an€instruction€may€be€harmless€error€if€found€to€be€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð `  Ð702€S.W.2d€560,€565€(Tenn.€1985).€€In€the€petitioner's€first€post„conviction€petition,€decided€by€thisÐ P  Ðcourt€on€October€12,€1987,€the€instructions€were€deemed€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ThatÐ ð@  Ðdetermination€is€final.€€As€such,€the€ruling€in€òòSullivanóó€is€distinguishable€and€would€not€afford€theÐ à0  Ðpetitioner€any€procedural€relief.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€Ð ° ÐÌÌÌà  àà0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à___________________________________€ÐpÀ(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE