WPC3 y%vX&A؝H%Dv{,4@ t bbbj-z k@b W%;lǂGvp%l[R6)qSq\wC;Z"r٤4!p-Α 9=)16=atȖ}}T "dry {'ٲ@Ki_*&W-?Yu/<PGm#gkAUgM|3ieZՔ&JpRGԨ`VW DԨGY[R zn_NW!pY\Fvrtn:(T9Ir0ECCi¹fzзǍƚY_ <`( f|M${^V+GVd;<w1OGo^_YZ}ш2Jҵ'͛0bibԖd Ɔ吹?6_#2U N %I 0:O N ^ w 4   m  b 0U 0L 05 0 0 E 0 0 0 0n 0CB 0 0\ 00 0 0 0 0b 0' 0@ 0' 0 0 0 0e 0- 0 0 00q 0< 0 0> 0v 0`O! 0`! 0`" 0`o" 0`" 08/# 0g# 029$ 0k$ 0:g% 0Y% 0_% 0 Y& 0jc' 0( B*Q* D/{* D+* 0* D/Y, 0, 06V- 0- 0:. 0^. 0<,/ 1eh/ 0N/U60U>Q0U*0b0000 0U1 B11111 1u1 72n2 0(2 AM2\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,};1 b.:i+003|xU Howse- -*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7B(X7  ?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7C(X7&  d dA)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7E(X7  ?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7C(X7A)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !" 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial- - Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(-2$ !USUS.,   d3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)[i)($SU]CA<< c !USUS.,  _XXQ8XXdd8    @ttINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#XX=#@XXԈ & #XX@R#@XX@ AssignedonBriefsJune15,2004 L #XX@#@XX@ STATEOFTENNESSEEv.MARKDANIEL_GODSEY_   p #XX@4#XX@  #XX#DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty F  @ Nos.239641and242704RebeccaStern,Judge 2  @*AV) ` dE<` A߈ F  @I I No.E200302141CCAR3_HC_ԀFiledSeptember27,_2004_Ԉ A    AV) ` dE<` A      DefendantappealsthetrialcourtsdismissalofhispetitionforwritofhabeascorpusinCaseNo.  242704inwhichDefendantallegedthatthemunicipalordinancesupportinghisconvictionfor  recklessdrivingwasunlawfullyenacted.Defendantalsoappealsthetrialcourtsorderdeclaringhim  tobeanhabitualmotorvehicleoffenderinCaseNo.239641.Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord, t weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentsinCaseNos.242704and239641. ` @ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentsoftheTrialCourtAffirmed  8 ThomasT._Woodall_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_andJohn ` EverettWilliams,JJ.,joined. L JerryH.Summers,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,MarkDaniel_Godsey_. $ PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;ElizabethT.Ryan,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;  WilliamH.Cox,III,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andKennethO.Fritz,AssistantDistrictAttorney   General,fortheappellee,theStateofTennessee. !  @66' OPINION  \#"   OnMarch11,2002,theStatefiledapetitiontodeclareDefendantanhabitualmotorvehicle 4% $ offenderpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510607.Aspredicateoffenses,theState  &p!% allegedthatDefendanthadbeenconvictedofdrivingwhileimpairedonSeptember1,1999;for  '\"& drivingundertheinfluenceonNovember26,1999;andforrecklessdrivingonNovember19,2001. 'H#' TheNovember19,2001,convictionforrecklessdrivingresultedfromaviolationofsection2413 (4$( oftheChattanoogaCityCode. ) %)   BeforeahearingwasconductedontheStatespetition,Defendantfiledapetitionforhabeas +&+ corpusreliefanda motiontostrikeapriorconvictiononJanuary2,2003.Inhispetition, ,', Defendantallegedthatsection2413oftheChattanoogaCityCodewasunlawfullyenacted,and -(- _DefendantsconvictiononNovember19,2001wasthereforevoid.Defendantconcededthathewas  notincarceratedasaresultofthisconviction.Defendantargued,however,thathabeascorpusrelief  wasappropriatebecausetheStatesattempttousehisrecklessdrivingconvictiontosupporta  findingthatDefendantwasanhabitualmotorvehicleoffenderoperatedasarestraintagainsthis t liberty.TheCityofChattanooga,althoughnotnamedasapartytothelawsuit,filedananswerto ` Defendantspetitionforhabeascorpusreliefgenerallydenyingthatsection2413wasunlawfully L  enacted. 8    ThetrialcourtdeniedDefendantspetitionforhabeascorpusreliefinCaseNo.242704on  ` May8,2003.OnMay23,2003,Defendantfiledanamendedpetitionforwritofhabeascorpusand  L  amotiontorehearwhichthetrialcourtdeniedonJuly31,2003.Thetrialcourtenteredanorder  8  nuncprotunctoAugust27,2003inCaseNo.239641declaringDefendanttobeanhabitualmotor $  vehicleoffender.DefendantfiledanoticeofappealonAugust28,2003.    I.NoticeofAppeal      WefirstaddresstheStateschallengetothesufficiencyofthecontentofDefendantsnotice p ofappeal.TheStatearguesthatDefendantsnoticeofappealfailstoreferspecificallytothetrial \ courtsjudgmentonJuly31,2003inCaseNo.242704denyingDefendanthabeascorpusrelief.The H StatepointsoutthatthebodyofDefendantsnoticerefersonlytothetrialcourtsorderenterednunc 4 protuncforAugust27,2003inCaseNo.239641declaringDefendanttobeahabitualmotorvehicle  p offender.TheStatearguesthattheissuesonappealarethuslimitedtothosearisingoutofthetrial  \ courtsAugust27,2003order. H   Rule3(f)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedurerequiresanappellanttospecifythe   judgmentfromwhichreliefissoughtinhisorhernoticeofappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.3(f).Rule   3(f),however,alsostatesthat [a]nappealshallnotbedismissedforinformalityofformortitleof  thenoticeofappeal.Id.Thepurposeoftheruleistoprovideformalnoticeofanintentionto  appeal.Id.,AdvisoryCommissionComments.    ThebodyofDefendantsnoticeofappealreadsasfollows: X  8  ComesnowtheDefendantMARKDANIELGODSEY,byandthroughcounsel,and 0"  pursuanttoTennesseeruleofAppellateProcedure3,to[sic]herebygivenoticethat #l! heintendstoappealtotheCourtofCriminalAppealsthefinaljudgmententeredin $X" thisactiononthe27thdayofAugust,2003.(Emphasisinoriginal.)$D #     Notwithstandingthecontentsofthebodyofthenotice,however,thecaptionofDefendants &"% noticeofappealspecificallydirectshisappealfromthetrialcourtsjudgmentsinbothCaseNo. '#& 239641andCaseNo.242704.AfailuretocomplywithRule3(f)doesnotlimittheissueswhich (#' mayberaisedonappeal.Dunlapv.Dunlap,996S.W.2d803,811(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Thescope )$( ofreviewonappealisaddressedinRule13(a)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure. |*%) Tenn.R.App.P.13,AdvisoryCommissionComments. [Rule3(f)]readinconjunctionwithrule h+&* 13(a)permitsanyquestionoflawtobebroughtupforreview[exceptasotherwiseprovidedinRule  3(e)]aslongasanypartyformallydeclaresanintentiontoappealinatimelyfashion.Id.;seealso  Statev.Wood,91S.W.3d769,774(Tenn.Crim.App.2002).    TheStatereliesonHallv.Hall,772S.W.2d432(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)insupportofits ` argumentthatDefendanthasfailedtoperfecthisappealofCaseNo.242704.InHall,theappellant L  attemptedtoseekreviewofanorderofcontemptdespitethefactthatneitherofhistwonoticesof 8  appealreferencedthatmatter.TheCourtofAppealsconcludedthatthedefendantwasprecluded $ t fromraisinganyissuesconcerningtheorderofcontemptbecauseofnoncompliancewithRule3(f).  ` Moreimportantly,however,thejudgmentofcontemptwasnotafinal,appealableorder.Hall,772  L  S.W.2dat437.  8    Thisisnotthesituationintheinstantcase.Defendantfiledanoticeofappealreferencing   bothcasesonAugust28,2003.ThenoticewastimelyfiledastothetrialcourtsJuly31,2003order   dismissingDefendantspetitionforhabeascorpusreliefinCaseNo.242704.SeeTenn.R.App.P.   4(a).Thenoticeofappealwasalsotimelyfiledastothetrialcourtsorderenterednuncprotunc   forAugust27,2003orderinCaseNo.239641.Basedonthefactspresentedinthiscase,wecannot p concludethatDefendantsfailuretospecificallyrefertothetrialcourtsJuly31,2003orderinthe \ bodyofhisnoticeofappealprecludesthisCourtfromreviewingtheissuesraisedinDefendants H brief.Dunlap,996S.W.2at810. 4  II.ValidityofDefendantsRecklessDrivingConviction   \   Defendantsbasisforbothhischallengetothetrialcourtsorderdeclaringhimtobean 4 habitualmotorvehicleoffenderandhispetitionforhabeascorpusreliefhingesuponthevalidityof   section2413oftheChattanoogaCityCode.Defendantcontendsthathisrecklessdrivingconviction   undersection2413oftheChattanoogaCityCodeisvoidbecausethepenaltiesimposedbythe  municipalordinancedonotmirrorthoseassociatedwithaviolationofthestatutoryoffenseof  recklessdrivingfoundinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510205.    Section2413oftheChattanoogaCityCodeprovidesthat: X  8   ` (a)Anypersonwhodrivesanyvehicleinwillfulorwantondisregardforthe 0"  safetyofpersonsorpropertyisguiltyofrecklessdriving.#l!   8   ` (b)Everypersonconvictedofrecklessdrivingshallbepunisheduponthefirst $D # convictionbyafineofnotlessthanfivedollars($5.00),onasecondconvictionby %0!$ afineofnotlessthantendollars($10.00),onathirdconvictionbyafineofnotless &"% thantwentyfivedollars($25.00)andonallsubsequentconvictionsbyafineofnot '#& lessthanfiftydollars($50.00).(#'   Chattanooga,Tn,Code2413(1986). |*%)  h+&*   Section2413wasenactedpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510307which  providesthat:  8   ` (a)Anyincorporatedmunicipalitymaybyordinanceadopt,byreference,any t oftheappropriateprovisionsof558101!558180,5510101!5510310,55 ` 50301,5550302,5550304,5550305,5550311,and5550312,andmayby L  ordinanceprovideadditionalregulationsfortheoperationofvehicleswithinthe 8  municipality,whichshallnotbeinconflictwiththeprovisionsofsuchsections.$ t     Thestatutoryoffenseofrecklessdrivingiscommittedby anypersonwhodrivesanyvehicle  L  inwillfulorwantondisregardforthesafetyofpersonsorproperty.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510205.  8  Section2413thusincorporatesthesameelementsoftheoffenseofrecklessdrivingasdoesstate $  law.CompareChattanooga,Tn,Code2413(a)withTenn.CodeAnn.5510205(a).A   violationoftheoffenseofrecklessdrivingunderstatelaw,however,isaClassBmisdemeanor   whichcarriesapunishmentofaperiodofconfinementnotgreaterthansixmonthsandafinenotto   exceedfivehundreddollars.Id.5510205(b)and4035111(e)(3).Defendantarguesthatthe   citysfailuretoadoptthepenaltyprovisionsofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510205(b)was p outsideitsstatutoryauthoritythusrenderingtheordinancevoid. \   Inconstruingstatutes,wemust giveeffecttothelegislativeintentwithoutundulyrestricting 4 orexpandingastatutescoveragebeyonditsintendedscope.Statev.Flemming,19S.W.3d195,  p 197(Tenn.2000),citingStatev.Butler,980S.W.2d359,362(Tenn.1998).Legislativeintentis  \ determined fromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthestatutorylanguagewithinthecontextof H theentirestatutewithoutanyforcedorsubtleconstructionthatwouldextendorlimitthestatutes 4 meaning.Flemming,19S.W.3dat197.Amunicipality mayexerciseonlythoseexpressor   necessarilyimpliedpowersdelegatedtoitbytheLegislatureinitscharterorunderstatutes.City   ofLebanonv.Baird,756S.W.2d236,241(Tenn.1988)(citationsomitted).Anactionwhichfalls  outsideofamunicipalitysstatutoryauthorityisultravires,orbeyondthescopeofitspowers,and  thusvoidorvoidable.Id.,citingCrockerv.TownofManchester,178Tenn.67,156S.W.2d383,  384(1941). l   Asoursupremecourthaspreviouslyrecognized, thelegislaturemayconferjurisdiction D! uponmunicipalcourtstotryanddisposeofcasesbaseduponviolationofState[traffic]statutes 0"  forthepurposesofeconomy,efficiencyandexpeditioushandlingoftrafficcases.Cityof #l! Chattanoogav.Davis,54S.W.3d248,277(Tenn.2001),citingHillv.Stateexrel.Phillips,216 $X" Tenn.503,392S.W.2d950,952(1965).Accordingly,Chattanooga,asahomerulemunicipality, $D # isstatutorilyauthorizedtoestablishcitycourtstotryviolationsofcityordinances.Tenn.CodeAnn. %0!$ 1617101(a).SeeChattanoogaHamiltonCountyHospitalAuthorityv.CityofChattanooga,580 &"% S.W.2d322(Tenn.1979)(NotingthattheCityofChattanoogabecamea homerulemunicipality '#& inNovember,1972).Thecityjudgehasthe powerandauthoritytotryanddisposeofviolations (#' ofmunicipalordinancesandhaveallotherpowerstouchinguponthearrestandpreliminarytrial, )$( discharging,bindingover,ofallpersonschargedwithoffensesagainstthestatecommittedinthecity |*%) ormunicipality.Tenn.CodeAnn.1617103.Themaximumpenalty,however,whichmaybe h+&* setbyahomerulemunicipalityforviolationofanordinanceisthirtydaysimprisonmentand/or  forfeituresuptofivehundreddollarstocoveradministrativeexpenses.Id.654306(a)(Supp.  2003).    Eachstatestatutorymisdemeanoroffensecarriesthepossibilityofafine,uptoaset ` maximumamountdependingontheoffensesclassification,unlessotherwiseprovidedbystatute. L  Id.4035111(e)(emphasisadded).TheTennesseeconstitutionrequiresthatajuryfixthefine 8  wherethefineisassessedaspunishmentforanoffenseandisinexcessoffiftydollars.Tenn.Const. $ t art.VI,14;Tenn.CodeAnn.4035301.ArticleVI,section14 appliestoproceedingsinvolving  ` theviolationofamunicipalordinancewhenthemonetarysanctionservespunitivegoals.Davis,  L  54S.W.3dat262.InCityofChattanoogav.Davis,oursupremecourtobservedthatTennessee  8  CodeAnnotatedsection654306,atleastfacially,isnotaperseviolationofArticleVI,section14 $  becausetheexpresslanguageofthestatutelimitstheimpositionofamonetarypenalty tocover   administrativeexpenses.Id.at274.Assuch,section654306 confersnoauthorityontheCity   ofChattanoogatoimposepunitivepenaltiesinexcessoffiftydollars,eitherwithorwithoutajury.   Id.at267,n.19.     Thepurposeofthepenaltyprovisionsofsection2413oftheChattanoogaCityCode, \ however, is[clearly]topunishtheoffender,andthelanguagedoesnototherwisesuggestany H remedialpurposestobeservedbythefine.Id.at266.Thesupremecourtstatedthat: 4 8  onlycourtsofgeneraljurisdictionhavethepowertoempanelajurytodetermine  \ factsorimposepunishment.Therefore,irrespectiveofanycityordinancetothe H contrary,thediscretionoftheChattanoogaCityCourttoimposepunitivemonetary 4 sanctionsisnecessarilylimitedbyArticleVI,section14tofinesnotexceedingfifty   dollars.    Id.at267.    Areviewingcourtmust notapplyaparticularinterpretationtoastatuteifthatinterpretation l wouldleadtoanabsurdresult.Flemming,19S.W.3dat197.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection X  5510307authorizesincorporatedmunicipalitiestoadoptbyreference anyoftheappropriate D! provisionsof...[5510205].TheCityofChattanoogasadoptionoftheelementsoftheoffense 0"  ofrecklessdrivingwasavalidexerciseofitsauthorityunderthissection.Theimplementationofa #l! penaltystructureforviolatorsofthemunicipalordinancedefiningtheoffenseofrecklessdrivingwas $X" inkeepingwiththeCityofChattanoogasauthorizedpowerstopunishoffenders.Tointerpret $D # TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510307otherwisewouldleadtothefutilerequirementthat %0!$ amunicipalityadoptpenaltiesitiswithoutauthoritytoenforceifitwishedtoadoptanyofthe &"% enumeratedstatutoryoffenseslistedinthissection. '#&   DefendantreliesonCityofChattanoogav.Davisinsupportofhisargumentandcontends )$(  inhisbriefthatthesupremecourthaspreviouslystatedthat section2413oftheChattanoogaCity |*%) Codeisarguablynotalawfullyenactedmunicipalordinancebecauseitsprovisionsdonotmirror  statelaw.Inthiscase,however,thesupremecourtobserved:   8   ` InitsroleasAmicusCuriae,theDistrictAttorneysGeneralConference t arguesstronglythatsection2413oftheChattanoogaCityCodeisnotalawfully ` enactedmunicipalordinancebecauseitsprovisionsdonot mirrorstatelawas L  arguablyrequiredbysection5510307.However,becausetheissuepresentedby 8  theappellantregardingthedifferentpenaltiesconcernedonlytheconstitutionalityof $ t thestatestatuteunderArticleXI,section,8,wedeclinetoaddresstheargument  ` raisedbytheAmicus.Tobeclear,though,ourholdingthatsection5510307does  L  notfaciallyviolateArticleXI,section8innowayresolvestheissueofwhether  8  ChattanoogaCityCodesection2413mustmirrortheprovisionsofTennesseeCode $  Annotatedsection5510205tobestatutorilyvalid.Wereservethisissuefor   decisioninfuturecases.    Davis,54S.W.3dat278.     BecausethesupremecourtspecificallydeclinedtoaddresstheissueraisedbyDefendantin \ thisappeal,thereisnoauthorityinCityofChattanoogav.Davistocontrolthedispositionofthe H issue. 4  III.HabitualMotorVehicleOffenderStatus   \   Thetrialcourtfoundthattherewerenomaterialdisputedissuesoffactwithregardtothe 4 allegationscontainedintheStatespetitionanddeclaredDefendanttobeanhabitualmotorvehicle   offenderasdefinedbyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510603(2)(A).Asrelevanthere,an   habitualmotorvehicleoffenderisanyonewhoisconvicted,withinathreeyearperiod,ofatleast  threeofseveralspecificallyenumeratedoffenses.Id.Thepredicateoffensesincludetheviolation  ofamunicipalordinance iftheelementsoftheoffensecoveredbytheordinancearethesameas  theelementsoftheoffensecoveredbythecomparablestatute.Id.603(2)(B). l   TheStateofferedevidencethatDefendanthadbeenconvictedofdrivingwhileimpairedon D! September1,1999,drivingundertheinfluenceonNovember26,2000,andrecklessdrivingon 0"  November19,2001,allwithinathreeyearperiod.ThejudgmentoftheChattanoogaCityCourt #l! findingDefendantguiltyofsection2413wasdulyentered,andDefendantdidnotseekanyappeal $X" fromthejudgment.Defendantpaidthefine,andthejudgmentbecamefinal.Nothingontheface $D # oftherecordoftheconvictioninvalidatesthisfinaljudgment.SeeEverhardv.State,563S.W.2d %0!$ 795(Tenn.Crim.App.1978).Oncethetrialcourtdeterminesthatthedefendanthastherequisite &"% numberofconvictionswithintherequisitetimeperiod,therearenomaterialdisputedissuesoffact, '#& andthetrialcourtisrequiredtodeclarethedefendantanhabitualoffenderandrevokehisorher (#' drivingprivileges.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510613(a).Basedonthefactspresentedinthiscase,we )$( findthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrindeclaringDefendantanhabitualmotorvehicleoffender. |*%)  h+&*  VI.HabeasCorpusRelief     Defendantshabeascorpuspetitionwasbaseduponhisclaimthathisconvictionunder  section2413oftheChattanoogaCityCodewasvoid.Weneednotaddressthisargumentbased t upontheforegoingconclusionthattheordinanceisnotvoid.Furthermore,therestrainton ` Defendantslibertycausedbyanorderdeclaringhimtobeanhabitualmotorvehicleoffenderis L  merelyacollateralconsequenceofhisconvictionofrecklessdriving.Undertherecentlydecided 8  decisionoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtinHickmanv.State,___S.W.3d.___,No.E200201916 $ t SCR11PC(Tenn.Sept.22,2004),habeascorpus isnotanappropriateavenueforrelief.Id.,slip  ` op.at67.  L    @FF% CONCLUSION $    Afterathoroughreviewofthisrecord,weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentsinCaseNos.   242704and239641.      `     h     ___________________________________ p    `     h     THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE \