WPC # VUNa % 0(w4  0 0Dl  0J 0T 0^V 0h 0r  0| 0 0 1u& 0d BU>B)ZDCU* AM D3=pST 0@v~ve AO8 0DM D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($PBDCDEFEGHIUEVWDXYEZ[\E]^_E`aDbcDdeEfgEhiEjkDlmDnEopqDrsEtuDvwExyDz{E|}E~E{EDDDEeDDeDEEӀԡ 3|x(8(2$ !  4X   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  H2J 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-'C << G'dxd !%  ((   YYY FILED(XSeptember30,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   I !#d#%   $ 4  X        %(Thejudgmentformsarenotincludedintherecord.Thisinformationappearsinanaffidavitinthetechnicalrecord.("$    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 ! . %  ݛ `   4   4  X \RA'\ќ  (\RA'\R)+'A1-j|`  `@Rߛ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLEAPRIL1997SESSION  MARVINGOODMAN,  * C.C.A.#01C019607CR00286 Appellant,   * DAVIDSONCOUNTYVS.     * Hon.J.RandallWyatt,Jr.,JudgeSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  * (HabeasCorpus) Appellee.   *ForAppellant:    ForAppellee:JamesG.King    CharlesW.Burson222SecondAvenue   AttorneyGeneral&ReporterSuite416     450JamesRobertsonParkwayNashville,TN37201   Nashville,TN37243      LisaNaylor      AssistantAttorneyGeneral      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN37243      KatieMiller      AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral      222SecondAvenueNorth      WashingtonSquare,Suite500      Nashville,TN372011649OPINIONFILED:_______________________AFFIRMEDGARYR.WADE,JUDGE    7XXXdXXd7OPINION       In1991,thepetitioner,MarvinGoodman,wasconvictedoftwoseparatedrugoffenses ,   ׀andreceivedconcurrentsentencesofsixandeightyears.In1993,afteraconvictionforescape,hereceivedatwoyearsentencetobeservedconsecutivelytothe1991sentences.Inthisaction,thepetitionersoughtreliefontwodifferentgrounds: 4      (1)thatthe1989SentencingReformActviolatestheSeparationofPowersClauseoftheTennesseeConstitution;and(2)thatthe1989SentencingReformActviolatesthedeterminatesentencinglaw. 4   4  X Afteranevidentiaryhearing,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).  Here,thepetitionerhasneitherallegedthattheHamiltonCountytrialcourtlackedjurisdictionnorthathissentencehasexpired.Thus,noclaimforhabeascorpusreliefhasbeenstated.SeeMonroeE.Davisv.JimmyHarrison,Warden,No.02C019607CC00242,slipop.at4(Tenn.Crim.App.,atJackson,July2,1997)(holdingtheseidenticalchallengestotheSentencingActdonotstateaclaimforhabeascorpusrelief).  Hadthiscourtbeenabletoreachthemeritsoftheclaims,thepetitionerwouldnothaveprevailed.TheSeparationofPowersClauseoftheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesasfollows: 4      Sec.1.Divisionofpowers.ThepowersoftheGovernmentshallbedividedintothreedistinctdepartments:theLegislative,Executive,andJudicial.Sec.2.Limitationofpowers.Nopersonorpersonsbelongingtooneofthesedepartmentsshallexerciseanyofthepowersproperlybelongingtoeitheroftheothers,exceptinthecaseshereindirectedorpermitted. 4   4  X Tenn.Const.art.II,1,2.  The1989SentencingReformActrequiresthetrialjudgeto"determinetheappropriaterangeofsentence."Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(a).Therangedeterminationisanimportantfactorindeterminingreleaseeligibility.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035501.Thepetitionerarguesthatbecausethetrialcourtwasrequiredbystatutetodeterminetheapplicablerange,animpermissibleinvasionofthe"provinceoftheexecutivebranch"hadtakenplace.Thepetitionercontendsthatthelegislativebranchhasdelegatedtotheexecutivebranchtheexclusivepowertocalculateinitialparoleeligibilitydates.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4028101through125.  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."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).Thatrulingwouldcontrolinthesecircumstances.  Thepetitionerhasnextallegedthatthe1989SentencingActviolatesthedeterminatesentencinglaw.HeassertsthatthesentencingrangesalongwithreleaseeligibilitypercentagesestablishindeterminatesentencesinviolationofTenn.CodeAnn.4035211,anenactmentwhichrequirescourtsto"imposeaspecificsentencelengthforeachoffense....Therearenoindeterminatesentences."  Parole,however,doesnotterminateaprisoner'ssentence.SeeHowellv.State,569S.W.2d428,432(Tenn.1978).Whiletheprisonerisreleasedfromconfinement,thesentencecontinuesandtheparolee"isstillinthecustodyofthepenalauthoritiesoftheState."Doylev.Hampton,340S.W.2d891,893(Tenn.1960).Paroledoesnotcausethesentencetoexpireorterminate.Id.Thus,thepossibilityofparoledoesnotrenderasentenceindeterminate.Rangeclassificationsandreleaseeligibilitydeterminationsdonotcreatethepossibilityofindeterminatesentences.SeealsoBryant,slipop.at4(rulingthat"[p]aroledoesnotcauseasentencetoexpireorterminatebutisaconditionalreleasefrommorerestrictiveconfinement").    Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.      __________________________________      GaryR.Wade,JudgeCONCUR:_______________________________DavidH.Welles,Judge_______________________________CurwoodWitt,Judge%