ÿWPCá 6N®gëz> Eˆ ^ÇðÒàãEQÙа’ÚI? Ô{íçV§„Ì«: –c~AËÖ8µ“Ìp\½oyÉœ#7c_¡rYm”Í3ÿQõßoãw8ò¾ _LÜÈÛºû_#à U\ïJŠíõ–!­9ÓçÐÇsÂÍ”Œª ˜xaË*¥ A¼¿ÍÈm.=úçDR)²CÆ%_”ú¸½'ëk‰WçGÈOŠ7B÷’¡nJothŽ¿)8ÏT]Wºæ¨n¥¦T7×ÁçdŠÆå—NkÀ%ç¯Ëá¶¢K²©R­¢wf |`Öcbdµâ²¾^%Ø‘í£õsHu‚\Nj Úø5"›)«'rÑ_̽»ƒˆî÷vShpz‹ê/^ç’3©çVЕ ²R¸¡=g…ï¼èQ ˜s\qãWÝ.’Ú xUuU¹Ü6´£†·ˆÊÅ'ÛE~íu°BºuÍÕ"Ð@>tNÂN n`kHêoýÛä.lùR>–Û\¢3á»éKšŠÿÝú9áÿ _œ;Æ[¯] 0O±ÕÎKEaö¥ ÷]þ˜Ï(ÓL"°Y‘6Ý*Çê̘)U7®§ü´ÔóŒ#Íï·Zi¼ wùBPƆk'†b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz Ó‘ Æd Æ* Æð ƶ 0D|NÀÂÂEÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔbÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ 0ëÞÞÞÞ BÉÉ 0¤æ D3Š D-½ 0Kêê AS5ƈ 0¤N 0Dò A«6˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0» ¥) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÉÝ ƒRU§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô4„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€668€S.W.2d€681€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRU§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô4„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€crime€in€this€case€occurred€in€Shelby€County,€and€the€Defendant€was€sentenced€by€a€Shelby€CountyÐ ° ÐCriminal€Court.- ù-(|G2U§$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PP»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô4„ò»»Ô d(|3~$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PP»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3~$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PP»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PP»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼PP»»»ÔÑ8€<¼XXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îj“PPÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼PP»îîj“ #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡X<¼X»¼PPÔÌò òÔ#†¼PP»XX<¼#ÔDANIEL€BENSON€TAYLOR€v.€JACK€MORGAN,€WardenÔ‡X<¼X»¼PPÔó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔHickmanÔ_Ô€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„5073C„I€€€€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„01416„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€August€31,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€by€a€Shelby€County€jury€for€the€offense€of€second€degreeÐ &v  Ðmurder€committed€on€September€20,€1980.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€life€imprisonment€on€Ð  \ ÐOctober€6,€1982.€€His€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed€by€this€Court€on€direct€appeal,€and€theÐ òB ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€permission€to€appeal.€€The€Defendant€filed€a€petition€for€habeasÐ Ø( Ðcorpus€relief,€which€the€trial€court€dismissed.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¾ Ðdenial€of€habeas€corpus€relief,€contending€that€he€should€have€been€sentenced€under€the€TennesseeÐ ¤ô ÐCriminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1982,€under€which€he€argues€he€would€have€received€a€lesserÐ ŠÚ Ðpenalty.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€habeas€corpus€relief€and€affirm€the€judgmentÐ pÀ Ðof€the€trial€court.€€Ô#†¼PP»XX<¼€#ÔÔ‡X<¼X»¼PPÔÐ V¦ ÐÓÃÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ "r ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼PP»àX<¼µ#ÔÔ‡X<¼X.¼PPÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó€and€òòJohnÐ î> ÐEverett€Williams,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ô$ ÐÌJohn€E.€Ô_ÔHerbisonÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Daniel€Benson€Taylor.Ð  ð ÐÌMichael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Lucian€D.€Ô_ÔGeiseÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ron€Davis,Ð l!¼! ÐDistrict€Attorney€General;€Lucian€D.€Ô_ÔGeiseÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,Ð R"¢" ÐJack€Morgan,€Warden.Ð 8#ˆ# ÐÓg ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼PP»XX<¼– #ÔÔ‡X<¼X»¼PPÔÐ %T % ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼PP»XX<¼“ #ÔÔ‡X<¼X»¼PPÔÓ  Óà  àThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€habeas€corpus€relief.€€The€procedural€historyÐ Ð& "' Ðof€this€case,€which€is€pertinent€to€its€disposition,€is€as€follows:€€On€October€6,€1982,€a€Shelby€CountyÐ ¶'#( Ðjury€convicted€the€Defendant,€Daniel€Benson€Taylor,€of€second€degree€murder€committed€onÐ œ(ì#) Ðâ âSeptember€20,€1980€and€sentenced€him€to€life€imprisonment.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€affirmedÐ ‚)Ò$*ý Ðthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€subsequently€denied€permissionÐ ° Ðto€appeal.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àThe€Defendant€subsequently€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus,€which€wasÐ b² Ðdismissed€by€the€trial€court€on€January€19,€1999.€€The€Defendant€appealed€to€this€Court.€€On€AugustÐ H˜ Ð20,€1999,€this€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€Defendantððs€petition€for€writ€of€habeasÐ . ~ Ðcorpus€in€accordance€with€Rule€20€of€the€Rules€of€the€Tennessee€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€ThisÐ  d ÐCourt€then€initially€denied€the€Defendantððs€petition€for€rehearing,€but€subsequently€vacated€its€RuleÐ ú J Ð20€order€and€appointed€counsel€to€represent€the€Defendant€on€appeal.€€We€now€consider€theÐ à 0 ÐDefendantððs€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus.Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àThe€question€presented€for€our€consideration€is€which€of€two€apparently€conflicting€statutesÐ ’â  Ðis€applicable€to€the€Defendantððs€case.€€As€previously€stated,€the€offense€in€this€case€was€committedÐ xÈ  Ðon€September€20,€1980,€and€the€Defendant€was€sentenced€on€October€6,€1982.€€On€July€1,€1982,Ô#†¼PP»XX<¼ñ #ÔÔ‡X<¼X»¼PPÔÐ ^®  Ðsubsequent€to€the€offense€and€prior€to€sentencing,€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€ActÐ D”  Ðof€1982€became€effective.€€It€provided,€in€pertinent€part,Ð *z  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAll€persons€who€commit€crimes€on€or€after€July€1,€1982,€shall€be€tried€andÐ öF Ðsentenced€under€this€chapter.€€For€all€persons€who€committed€crimes€prior€to€July€1,Ð Ü, Ð1982,€the€prior€law€shall€apply€and€remain€in€full€force€and€effect€in€every€respect,Ð Â Ðincluding€but€not€limited€to€sentencing,€parole€and€probation.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)€(1982)€(repealed€1989).€€On€the€basis€of€this€statute,€the€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðsentenced€the€Defendant€under€pre„1982€law.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€Defendant€argues€that€former€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„1„105€shouldÐ &v Ðhave€governed€his€sentence.€€This€statute,€entitled,€ð ðRepealed€or€amended€laws€ð"ð€Application€inÐ  \ Ðprosecution€for€offense,ðð€provides€as€follows:Ð òB ÐÌà8  àà ` àWhenever€any€penal€statute€or€penal€legislative€act€of€the€state€is€repealed€orÐ ¾ Ðamended€by€a€subsequent€legislative€act,€any€offense,€as€defined€by€such€statute€orÐ ¤ô Ðact€being€repealed€or€amended,€committed€while€such€statute€or€act€was€in€full€forceÐ Š Ú Ðand€effect€shall€be€prosecuted€under€such€act€or€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommission€of€the€offense.€€In€the€event€the€subsequent€act€provides€for€a€lesserÐ V"¦! Ðpenalty,€any€punishment€imposed€shall€be€in€accordance€with€the€subsequent€act.€€Ð<#Œ"Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€ðð€39„1„105€(1982)€(repealed€1989).€€The€Defendant€thus€contends€that€he€should€have€beenÐ %X $ Ðsentenced€under€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1982,€under€which€he€claims€he€would€have€receivedÐ î%>!% Ða€lesser€sentence.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà  àAs€a€preliminary€matter,€we€must€first€determine€whether€the€Defendantððs€petition€properlyÐ  (ð#( Ðalleges€grounds€upon€which€habeas€corpus€relief€may€be€granted.€€The€remedy€of€habeas€corpus€isÐ †)Ö$) Ðvery€limited€in€our€state.€€The€writ€will€issue€only€when€a€convicting€court€was€without€jurisdictionÐ ° Ðor€authority€to€sentence€a€defendant€or€when€a€defendantððs€term€of€imprisonment€has€expired.€Ð –æ ÐòòTaylor€v.€Morganóó,€909€S.W.2d€17,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€writ€reaches€jurisdictional€errorÐ |Ì Ðonly,€or€in€other€words,€void,€not€voidable,€judgments.€€òòArcher€v.€Stateóó,€851€S.W.2d€157,€163„64Ð b² Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€ð ðA€void€judgment€is€one€in€which€the€judgement€is€facially€invalid€because€the€courtÐ H˜ Ðlacked€jurisdiction€or€authority€to€render€the€judgment€or€because€the€defendantððs€sentence€hasÐ . ~ Ðexpired.ðð€€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€995€S.W.2d€78,€83€(Tenn.€1999).€€The€petitioner€in€a€habeas€corpusÐ  d Ðproceeding€bears€the€burden€of€showing€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€conviction€isÐ ú J Ðvoid€or€that€the€prison€term€has€expired.€€òòÔ_ÔPasserellaÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€891€S.W.2d€619,€627€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð à 0 Ð1994).€Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àIn€contrast€to€a€habeas€corpus€proceeding,€a€second€procedural€avenue€available€forÐ ’â  Ðchallenging€a€conviction€or€sentence€which€has€become€final€is€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€AÐ xÈ  Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€is€the€appropriate€means€for€attacking€a€voidable€judgment.€Ð ^®  ÐòòTayloróó,€995€S.W.2d€at€83.€€A€voidable€conviction€or€sentence€is€defined€as€ð ðone€which€is€faciallyÐ D”  Ðvalid€and€requires€introduction€of€proof€beyond€the€face€of€the€record€or€judgment€to€establish€itsÐ *z  Ðinvalidity.ðð€€òòId.óó€€However,€a€post„conviction€proceeding€must€be€brought€in€a€timely€manner,€or€itÐ ` Ðis€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202.Ð öF ÐÌà  àHaving€thoroughly€reviewed€the€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€Defendant€has€notÐ Â Ðpresented€proper€grounds€for€habeas€corpus€relief.€€The€trial€court€that€sentenced€the€Defendant€hadÐ ¨ø Ðjurisdiction€over€both€the€offense€and€the€Defendant.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô#†¼PP»XX<¼Ò#ÔÔ‡X<¼X»¼PPÔFurthermore,€the€sentence€which€theÐ ŽÞ ÐDefendant€received€has€not€expired.€€Because€the€Defendant€has€not€demonstrated€that€his€convictionÐ tÄ Ðis€void€or€that€his€sentence€has€expired,€he€has€not€demonstrated€proper€grounds€for€habeas€corpusÐ Zª Ðrelief.€€òòSeeóó€òòTayloróó,€909€S.W.2d€at€19.Ð @ ÐÌà  àNonetheless,€the€Defendant€contends€that€he€received€an€illegal€sentence€because€he€shouldÐ  \ Ðhave€been€sentenced€under€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1982,€and€we€will€address€hisÐ òB Ðargument.€€In€doing€so,€we€must€determine€which€of€the€two€statutes€previously€Ô#†¼PP»XX<¼p'#ÔÔ‡X<¼X»¼PPÔcited€controls.€€ToÐ Ø( Ðmake€such€a€determination,€we€are€guided€by€rules€of€statutory€construction.€€Generally,€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]sÔ_Ô€aÐ ¾ Ðmatter€of€statutory€construction,€a€specific€statutory€provision€will€control€over€a€more€general€Ð ¤ô Ðprovision.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCauthernÔ_Ôóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€735€(Tenn.€1998).€€ð ð[A]€statute€treating€[a]€subjectÐ Š Ú Ðin€a€more€general€manner€should€not€be€considered€as€intended€to€affect€[a]€more€particularÐ p!À  Ðprovision.ðð€òòCole€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Moreover,€as€between€twoÐ V"¦! Ðconflicting€statutes€enacted€at€different€points€in€time,€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà8  à[Ô_Ôs]inceÔ_Ô€the€more€recent€statute€is€a€later€expression€of€the€legislative€intent,€.€.€.€theÐ %X $ Ðlater€enactment€will€normally€control.€€In€such€a€case,€the€newer€statute€may€beÐ î%>!% Ðregarded€as€creating€an€exception€to,€or€qualification€of,€the€prior€statute.€€However,Ð Ô&$"& Ðwhere€there€is€no€clear€intention€to€the€contrary,€a€specific€statute€will€not€beÐ º' #' Ðcontrolled€or€nullified€by€a€general€one,€regardless€of€the€priority€of€their€enactment.Р(ð#(Ð Ð  Ї82€Ô_ÔC.J.S.Ô_Ô€òòStatutesóó€ðð€354€(1999).Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„1„105,€cited€by€the€Defendant€in€support€of€hisÐ |Ì Ðcontention€that€he€should€have€been€sentenced€under€the€1982€Sentencing€Reform€Act,€was€part€ofÐ b² Ðour€criminal€code€under€both€the€1982€Sentencing€Reform€Act€and€pre„1982€law.€€It€was€repealedÐ H˜ Ðin€1989.€€In€contrast,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„112€was€enacted€in€1982€with€the€passageÐ . ~ Ðof€the€1982€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€Furthermore,€we€note€that€the€language€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ  d ÐAnnotated€ðð€40„35„112(a),€the€newer€statute,€is€more€specific€than€that€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ú J Ððð€39„1„105,€which,€by€its€very€terms,€applies€when€ð ðòòanyóó€penal€statute€or€òòanyóó€penal€legislative€act€ofÐ à 0 Ðthe€state€is€repealed€or€amended€by€a€subsequent€legislative€act.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„1„105Ð Æ   Ð(1982)€(repealed€1989)€(emphasis€added).€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àBecause€of€the€more€specific€nature€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„112€and€itsÐ xÈ  Ðsubsequent€enactment,€we€conclude€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„112€should€control€overÐ ^®  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„1„105€in€this€case.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€the€sentence€theÐ D”  ÐDefendant€received€was€not€illegal:€The€trial€judge€correctly€concluded€that€the€Defendant€wasÐ *z  Ðproperly€sentenced€under€pre„1982€law.€€We€thus€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€habeas€corpusÐ ` Ðrelief.€€Ð öF ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€Ð  ÐÔ#†¼PP»XX<¼]*#ÔÔ€X<¼X»¼PPÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð @ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE