WPCVM H?qP!R&xHŽ֍FLR4BBTa0n^ >QmHhY6i 峛:3;rt.(3K֮m-ʛXv`\$RI z3hϝ80'oR@KRu@8,)І<⨙Bz G L;Oaouglo#TݎU;G ?|:Z0A7W)T Z/l}|Q?x?E..BǦ딉3{ ¤Bܧ,G L\ b (k['C&1 &Tݷnpl9Ĺ3 ٿo٘@3 (k_$R״/{ķ/jiQ Ǔ\3!>8Ne %^  0UN wn4r z  m % 0D c )   #{NDbFEZ0\ 0U 0 0 0 0H 0 0 0a 0 0 0n 0?! 0! 0" 0F# 0# 0$ 0% 0% 0f& 04' 0'b( 0( 0:) 0) 0p* 0+ 0+ 0>, 0, 0>- 0- 0. 0/ 00 01 0x2 0Z3 04 024 05 0:6 0YN6 0_6 0 7 08 09 B*; D/; 0; D/= 0&> 06> 0*? 0:2@ 0^l@ 0<@ 0A 1eAU6VBU>B BBU*B 0C D5C D-C 0KDbD ASF;G 0H 0DH AH 1uI 72 J;J/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularb.:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU  R>D$      1    _Wefinditunnecessarytoreviewthetrialcourtsrulingsupportingdismissalofthepetitioninviewofour  decisioninthiscase.(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,0 X R>D$      4    _Indeed,therecordsofthiscourtindicatethattheAppellanthasfiledasecondchallengetothissameKnox  CountyGeneralSessionsconviction,whichiscaptioned,"PetitionForReliefFromConvictionorSentence."This t petitionwasalsodismissedatthetriallevelandisonappealtothiscourt.Interestingly,thispetitionstatesthatthe 8 petitioneriscurrentlyconfinedinaNorthCarolinafederalcorrectionalfacilityundersentenceimposedbytheUnited L StatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofFlorida.Assumingthisallegationistrue,theAppellantwouldagainbe  ineligibleforhabeascorpusreliefinTennessee.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.2921102(personscommittedordetainedby  virtueofprocessissuedbyacourtoftheUnitedStates,orajudgethereof...arenotentitledtothebenefitsofthiswrit). H   HICKMANWoodallTrantNicholsScarlettuncounseledDillehay"reincarcerationfunctualMalengUssery CrimMcCrawBomarBatemanCarafasLaValleeTansilBurgett S.CtU.S.C.S. & R>D$      2    _Whileacknowledgingthevariationinscopeandremedyofthefederalhabeascorpusstatuteandthisstates  statute,wenonethelessareremindedthatbothhavetheiroriginsinthecommonlawandbothissueonly forthepurpose t ofinquiringintothecauseofrestraintofliberty.28U.S.C.S.2241,History;AncillaryLawsandDirectives(2003). 8 *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` - -(22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7I(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dH)1dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  H)2dxd0KS.SampleKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (|G2>D$ !.8dd8         0  !"#$%&'( 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman d%2A`Arial(|3?/$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1    / ' ib012r70ib012r7 .   ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?/$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)bi)  R>D$      3    _Inthedissent,ourcolleagueJudgeWilliams,citesChurchv.State,987S.W.2d855(Tenn.Crim.App.1998)  foracontraposition.InChurch,apanelofthiscourtaffirmedthedismissalofahabeascorpuspetition,concludingthat t thepetitionfailedtostateacognizableclaimforhabeascorpusrelief.Id.at858.TheholdinginChurchdoesnot 8 addresstheissuepresentedinthiscase.Moreover,weareconstrainedtonotethat,underthedissentsposition,there L wouldneverbeanyfinalityinajudgmentofconvictioninacriminalcase. !.8dd8     _   8FXXdd8@ttINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# #Ԉ &    @  @` March18,2003Session L XFX #XXF#ROGERL.HICKMANv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXFX  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.74318RayL.Jenkins,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200201916CCAR3PC   December18,_2003_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     TheAppellant,RogerL.Hickman,appealsthedismissalofhispetitionforwritofhabeascorpus x  collaterallyattackinga1986misdemeanorconviction.Weaffirmdismissalofthepetitionupon d groundsthat(1)thereisnoshowingthatHickmaniscurrently"imprisonedorrestrainedofhis P liberty,"asrequiredbyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection2921101,and(2)thepetitionfailsto < complywiththestatutoryrequirements#XXFь#XFX. (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed.  P   #XF#XFX.DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichThomasT.Woodall,J.,joined; ( JohnEverettWilliams,J.,dissenting.  #XXFѲ#XFXDouglasA.Trant,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,RogerL.Hickman.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;ThomasE. t Williams,II,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;RandallE.Nichols,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andZane ` M.Scarlett,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. L  #XXFѳ#XFX@@OO& OPINION #XXFѪ #XFX #`"  FactualBackground  $8 $ #XXF #  XFX  In1986,theAppellantpledguiltytosimplepossessionofmarijuanaintheKnoxCounty &"& GeneralSessionsCourtandreceiveda$50.00fineandatendaysuspendedsentence.InFebruary, '"' 2002,theAppellantfiledapetitionforwritofhabeascorpusintheKnoxCountyCriminalCourt (#( allegingthathis1986convictionwasvoidbecauseitresultedfromanuncounseledguiltyplea.At )$) anevidentiaryhearingonthisissue,theproofestablishedthatnoattorneyofrecordwasnotedon p*%*  the1986warrant/judgmentformandthejudgmentdidnotreflectthattheAppellantwaivedhisright \+&+ _tocounsel.Thetrialcourtdismissedthepetitionupongroundsthatthejudgmentwasvoidableas  opposedtovoiduponitsface,thus,warrantingnorelief.   #  1      ׀Thisappealfollowed.   @& ANALYSIS  t   Theremedyofhabeascorpus,whichfindsitsorigininthecommonlaw,isguaranteedbythe L  ConstitutionofTennessee.Tenn.Const.Art.1,.15;Ricksv.State,882S.W.2d387,390(Tenn. 8  Crim.App.1994).Itscentralpurposehasbeentotestthelegalityofdetention.Theremedyof $ t habeascorpusislimitedinscope,aswellasrelief,andisavailableonlytocontestavoidjudgment  ` orasentencethathasexpired.Archerv.State,851S.W.2d157,161162,64(Tenn.1993).  L    TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection2921101setsoutwhenhabeascorpusreliefis $  available:   Ѐ   8  Anypersonimprisonedorrestrainedofhisliberty,underanypretensewhatsoever,   except[thoseheldunderfederalauthority]mayprosecuteawritofhabeascorpusto   inquireintothecauseofsuchimprisonmentandrestraint.p   Tenn.CodeAnn.2921101.Theterm"restrainedofhisliberty"hasbeenextendedtoinclude H constructivecustody,aswellasactualphysicalcustody.Stateexrel.Dillehayv.White,398S.W.2d 4 737,738(Tenn.1966)(holdingthatadefendantreleaseduponherownrecognizancecould  p neverthelesspursueahabeascorpusclaimundertheprincipleof"constructiveconfinement"because  \ shewassubjecttoimmediateincarcerationshouldherappealbedismissed).Theconceptof H constructivecustodyisapplicableonlyinthosesituationswherethepetitionermaylaterlosehisor 4 herlibertyandbeeventuallyincarceratedunderthechallengedconviction.Accordingly,inaddition   tothose"imprisoned,"habeascorpusreliefhasbeenextendedtoaprisoneronparole,probation,or   otherformofrelease.    Inthiscase,wehaveconcludedthattheAppellanthaspresentedacognizablehabeascorpus  claim,i.e.,thathis1986misdemeanorconvictionispresumptivelyvoid.BecausetheAppellantis l notinactualorconstructivecustody,ashissentencehaslongexpired,thequestionremainswhether X  wemustfurtherextendthephrase"imprisonedorrestrainedofhisliberty"toourAppellant. D! AlthoughweareunabletofindanyappellatedecisionsdirectlyonpointinTennessee,wefindthe 0"  followingdecisionspersuasive.InMalengv.Cook,490U.S.488,492,109S.Ct.1923,1926 #l! (1989),  #  2      ׀theSupremeCourt,inconstruingthe"incustody"provisionofthefederalhabeascorpus $X" statute,held: $D # Ї8  Thequestionpresentedbythiscaseiswhetherahabeaspetitionerremains'in  custody'underaconvictionafterthesentenceimposedforithasfullyexpired,merely  becauseofthepossibilitythatthepriorconvictionwillbeusedtoenhancethe  sentencesimposedforanysubsequentcrimesofwhichheisconvicted.Weholdthat t hedoesnot.Whilewehaveveryliberallyconstruedthe'incustody'requirementfor ` purposesoffederalhabeas,wehaveneverextendedittothesituationwhereahabeas L  petitionersuffersnopresentrestraintfromaconviction.Sincealmostallstateshave 8  habitualoffenderstatutes,...acontraryrulingwouldmeanthatapetitionerwhose $ t sentencehascompletelyexpiredcouldnonethelesschallengetheconvictionfor  ` whichitwasimposedatanytimeonfederalhabeas.Thiswouldreadthe'incustody'  L  requirementoutofthestatuteandbecontrarytotheclearimplicationoftheopinion  8  inCarafasv.LaVallee,[391U.S.,234,238,88S.Ct.1556,1560(1968)(holding $  thatthefederalhabeascorpusstatuterequiredthatthehabeaspetitionerbe"in   custody"asaresultoftheconvictionorsentenceunderattackatthetimehispetition   wasfiled)].    Malengv.Cook,490U.S.at492,109S.Ct.at1926. 8 @ Wehaveneverheld,...,thatahabeas p petitionermaybeincustodyunderaconvictionwhenthesentenceimposedforthatconvictionhas \ fullyexpiredatthetimehispetitionisfiled.Id.at491,1925. H   InJohnMockv.Warden,No.CV000003127(Conn.Super.Ct.atRockland,Feb.18,2003),  p theSuperiorCourtofConnecticut,whenconfrontedwithanissuevirtuallyidenticaltotheissue  \ presentedbeforeus,observed, H 8  thereisnofixedstatuteoflimitationsforthefilingofapetitionforthewritofhabeas   corpus.Notwithstandingthislackofafixedstatuteoflimitations,thereisakey   prerequisitetothefilingofahabeascorpuspetitionthatisthefunctualequivalentof  astatuteoflimitations.Inorderforthecourttograntawritofhabeascorpus,the  petitionermustbe'illegallyconfinedordeprivedofhisliberty,'atthetimethatthe  petitionisfiled.l   Ѐ X  JohnMock,No.CV000003127at*34. D!   Consistentwiththeseholdingsandthecommonlawhistoryofthewritarethefollowing 0"  reportedappellatedecisionsofthisstate.d  #  3      ׀Oursupremecourthasheldthattheonlyreliefthatcan #l! begivenaprisonerinastatehabeascorpusproceedingisreleaseordischargefromcustody.Ussery $X" v.Avery,432S.W.2d656,658(Tenn.1968);Taylorv.Morgan,909S.W.2d17,20(Tenn.Crim. $D # App.1995).Thepurposeofthewritofhabeascorpusistotestthelegalityoftheimprisonmentor %0!$ restraintofonewhoisbeingillegallydetained.Statev.Warren,740S.W.2d427,428(Tenn.Crim. &"% App.1986).InUsseryv.Avery,432S.W.2dat658,thecourtdeniedhabeascorpusrelief,even  thoughthejudgmentwaspotentiallyvoid,becauseimprisonmentresultedfromaconvictionother  thanthatchallengedinthepetition.Afortiori,habeasreliefisavailableonlytoapetitioner  contestingthevalidityofthejudgmentunderwhichheisconfined.Id.;seealsoWarren,740 t S.W.2dat428. `   Moreover,weconcludethattheTennesseehabeascorpusstatutesclearlycontemplatethat 8  thehabeaspetitionermustbeineitheractualorconstructivecustodyofthesentencebeing $ t challengedatthetimethepetitionisfiled.See,e.g.,Tenn.CodeAnn.2921110(requiringthat  ` thewritbedirectedtothesherifforotherpersonhavingcustodyoforrestrainingthepersonon  L  whosebehalftheapplicationismadeandcommandingtherestrainingauthoritytohavethebodyof  8  suchpersonbeforethecourtatthetimeandplacespecified);Tenn.CodeAnn.2921122 $  (providingthatiflegalcausefordetentionisnotshown,thepetitionershallbedischarged,otherwise,   thepetitionershallberemandedtocustody).Weareconstrainedtonotethattheterm"imprisoned   orrestrainedofliberty"forpurposesofhabeascorpusreliefisnotcoextensivewiththeterm"person   incustody"containedinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4030102ofourPostConviction   ProceduresAct.Thepostconvictionterm"incustody"haslongbeenconstruedtomeanthata p petitionermaycollaterallyattackaconviction,evenwhenthatsentenceisservedandthepetitioner \ isnolongeronanyformofrelease,ifthereisapossibilitythatanycollaterallegalconsequenceswill H beimposedonthebasisofthechallengedconviction.Ellisonv.State,549S.W.2d691,694(Tenn. 4 Crim.App.1976);seealsoStatev.McCraw,551S.W.2d692,694(Tenn.1977).Indeed,post  p convictionproceedingsareroutinelyutilizedtocollaterallychallengeavoidorvoidableconviction,  \ wherethatconvictionisbeingusedtoenhanceasecondorsubsequentsentence.Again,theterm H "restrainedofliberty"forhabeascorpuspurposesrequireseitheractualorconstructivecustody, 4 whiletheterm"incustody"forpostconvictionpurposesdoesnot.     BecausetherecordestablishesthattheAppellant's1986sentencehasexpiredandheisno  longerinactualorconstructivecustody,weconcludethattheAppellantisnot imprisonedor  restrainedofhisliberty,asrequiredbythehabeascorpusstatute.Accordingly,theissueofwhether  hemayprosecutethewritofhabeascorpusismoot.Stateexrel.Nelsonv.Sims,583S.W.2d302, l 303(Tenn.1976)(holdingthathabeascorpusproceedingwasrenderedmootafterpetitionerwasno X  longersubjecttoactualorconstructiveconfinementofa"peacewarrant");seealsoStateexrel. D! Lewisv.State,347S.W.2d47,48(Tenn.1961);Johnsonv.State,No.W200102373CCAR3CD 0"  (Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Aug.7,2002);Jonesv.State,No.01C019711CR00548(Tenn. #l! Crim.App.atNashville,Dec.11,1998). $X"   Finally,weobservethatthepetitionwoefullyfailstocomplywiththestatutoryprovisions, %0!$ whichrequirespecificfactstobeincludedintheapplicationforthewrit.Inthiscase,thepetitioner &"% (1)failstonametherestrainingauthorityandplaceofrestraint,(2)failstostatewhetherthelegality '#&  oftherestrainthasorhasnotbeenpreviouslyadjudicated,and(3)failstostatewhetherornot (#' previousapplicationshavebeenmade.  #  4      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.2921107(b)(1)(3),(4).Inaddition,the   petitionisnotverifiedbyaffidavit,asrequiredbyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection2921107(a).  CompliancewiththestatutoryrequirementsofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection2927107is  mandatoryandmustbescrupulouslyfollowed.Stateexrel.Kuntzv.Bomar,381S.W.2d290,291 t (Tenn.1964);Batemanv.Smith,194S.W.2d336,337(Tenn.1946). ` @FF% CONCLUSION  8    Basedupontheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthetrialcourt'sdismissaloftheAppellant's  ` applicationforthewritofhabeascorpus.  L     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE