WPC Yt ҆ ^6`SOhabߛI!Jɍ/z_NE 8ʟ^&০khz; gff1o褽-ł -mL@-UsN_κ:/4%p(bqe"($a_Ez^N!#]cA1 <@@pM> ,"K6T>=ż!Ė+Uh66bȊTЫcoSz㠲{*h.*%7m/aeFŐc9$ر0v>$wSBzڠ=kI~&z'j)/gG?AUp>p CB8 q.CU+3UlE=1,վW lJAѸ-W~]ǤKo}}.P乮axw9+ \ M)l5(dMmZ$2V=0 ź+jq}/h;%‚ b#\ % UN# 0q UN ^ G wS zW  4  Q 0D`  j0N mEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS8 0Q 0D A9HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularC-s  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.wptPH, bk0   R$      1  M  _TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldinFordv.Wainwright,477U.S.399,106S.Ct.2595,91L.Ed.2d  335(1986);thattheEighthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionprohibitstheexecutionofthementally t incompetent.3|x(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U- -(|G2$ !.8Tdd8         0  M d(|3Ǐ$ !.8Tdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ǐ$ !.8Tdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Tdd8     _   T8XXdd8@ttGTINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#TG #Ԉ &    @  @` October16,2001Session L XXT #TXX#CHARLESWILLIAMYOUNGv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXXT  J  AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMarshallCounty  J @@No.12722CharlesLee,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002007CCAMR3PCFiledSeptember27,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XXXX  Theappellant,Charles_WilliamYoung_,wasconvictedinajurytrialoftheoffenseoftheft P over$500.Hewassentencedtooneyearandsixmonthsandorderedtoserve60daysof < incarceration,topaya$500fineandrestitutionof$800.Theappellantsprobationwasrevokedfor (x thefirsttimein1997,buthewasagainplacedonprobationfor18months.Twoyearslaterhis d probationwasagainrevokedandtheappellantwasorderedtoservehisoriginalsentencewith94 P daysofjailcredit.Hesubsequentlyfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,orinthealternative, < awritofhabeascorpusandallegedinteraliathatanumberofallegedconstitutionalerrorsoccurred ( atbothprobationrevocationhearings.Thetrialcourtsummarilydismissedthepetition.    WeholdthatthePostConvictionProceduresAct,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4030  201,etseq.,doesnotprovideacauseofactionforacollateralattackonaprobationrevocation  proceeding.Moreover,theappellantsallegations,takenastrue,wouldatmostrendertheresults t oftheprobationrevocationproceedingsvoidable,notvoid,andthereforethewritofhabeascorpus ` isnotavailabletotheappellant.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisthereforeaffirmed.#XXXX##TXX#XXT L   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.  $"t!   #TX> #XX.TJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_andDavidH. #L# Welles,JJ.,joined. $8 $ WilliamJ._Eledge_,_Lawrenceburg_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,CharlesWilliamYoung. &"& PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;DavidH._Findley_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; (#( Mike_McCown_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;and_Weakley_ԀE.Barnard,AssistantDistrictAttorney )$) Generalfortheappellee,StateofTennessee. p*%*   4-(- Ї@@OO& OPINION #TXX" #XXT  #TXX#XXT  XXXX  TheappellanthaspresentedthisCourtwithanappealfromthedenialofapost  conviction/habeascorpusproceedingwhichcollaterallyattacksonconstitutionalgrounds,two t probationrevocationproceedingsthatultimatelyresultedintheappellantbeingorderedtoservehis ` originaleighteenmonthsentenceinconfinement.ThisCourtorderedthatthepartiesaddressthe L  questionofwhetherapostconvictionproceedingmaybeutilizedtoattackcollaterallyalleged 8  constitutionaldeprivationsoccurringataprobationrevocationhearing. $ t   TheappellantmaintainsthatthePostConvictionProcedureAct,TennesseeCodeAnnotated  L  Section4030201,etseq.,isanappropriatevehicleforacollateralattackonprobationrevocation  8  proceedings.Theappellantthengoesontoraisesevenallegedconstitutionalviolationsconcerning $  eitherand/orbothofhisprobationrevocationproceedings.TheStateinitiallyagreedthatpost   convictionproceedingswereavailabletoattackaprobationrevocationproceeding,buttheState   maintainedthattheissuesraisedintheinstantcasedidnotmeritrelief.Subsequently,withthe   permissionofthisCourt,theStatewithdrewitsoriginalbriefandfiledonearguingthatthePost   ConvictionProceduresActdoesnotcontemplateaprobationrevocationasaproceedingsubjectto p attackundertheact.TheStatefurthermaintainsthatbecausethisissotheappellantsremaining \ issuesmaynotbeconsideredbythisCourt. H _   `     h     _____@ ScopeofthePostConvictionProceduresAct  \   Section4030203ofthePostConvictionProceduresActprovides: 4 __8  8`   Reliefunderthispartshallbegrantedwhentheconvictionor   sentenceisvoidorvoidablebecauseoftheabridgmentofanyright  guaranteedbytheConstitutionofTennesseeortheConstitutionofthe  UnitedStates.` x` x (emphasissupplied) X  __  Thus,undertheact,thesubjectofthecollateralattackmusteitherbetheconvictionitselfor 0"  thesentence.Itisclearthattheappellantintheinstantcaseisnotattackinghisconviction.Rather, #l! asnotedabove,heiscomplainingofallegedconstitutionalviolationsthatheassertsrendertheorder $X" revokingprobationvoidorvoidable. $D #   Therefore,thequestioninthiscaseiswhetheranorderrevokingprobationandmandating &"% thatthesentenceoriginallyimposedbecarriedoutisa sentenceitselfsubjecttocollateralattack '#& underthepostconvictionact.Thisappearstobeaquestionoffirstimpressioninthisstate.Forthe (#' followingreasons,weholdthatsuchanorderisnota sentencesubjecttocollateralattackunder )$( the_provisions_ԀoftheTennesseePostConvictionProceduresAct. |*%)  h+&* Ї@ssSuspendedSentenceandProbation    Eligibilityofacriminaldefendantforsuspensionofsentenceandprobationisgovernedby ` TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4035303.Subsection(c)ofthatstatuteprovides: L  8  8`    Ifthecourtdeterminesthataperiodofprobationis $ t appropriate,thecourtshallsentencethedefendanttoaspecific  ` sentencebutshallsuspendtheexecutionofallorpartthereofand  L  placethedefendantonsupervisedofunsupervisedprobationeither  8  immediatelyorafteraperiodofconfinementforaperiodoftimeno $  lessthantheminimumsentenceallowedundertheclassificationand   uptoandincludingthestatutorymaximumtimefortheclassofthe   convictionoffense. ` x` x Itthusappearsthatthe sentenceacriminaldefendantreceivesistheperiodoftimethatthe p defendantcouldbeincarcerated.Incontrast,anorderrevokingsuspensionofsentenceorprobation \ typicallyendstheperiodofsuspensionoftheexecutionoftheoriginaltermandmandatesthatthe H originalsentencebecarriedout.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035310,311.Butitcannotbesaidthat 4 theorderrevokingsuspensionofsentenceandprobationimposesanewsentencesubjecttocollateral  p attackundertheTennesseePostConvictionProceduresAct.Accord,_OHaren_Ԁv.State,927S.W.2d  \ 447,451(Mo.Ct.App.1996)(holdingthatlanguageinMissouricourtrulesimilartothatinSec. H 4030203doesnotallowforpostconvictionattackonprobationrevocation). 4 "  TheTennesseeSupremeCourtcaseofVan_Tran_Ԁ_v._ԀState,6S.W.3d257(Tenn.1999);  althoughnotdirectlyonpointtotheissuehere,isnevertheless,instructive.InVan_Tran_,the  supremecourtwasfacedwiththeissueofwhatistheappropriateproceduralmechanisminacapital  casetoraisethequestionofthedefendantscompetenceatthetimeofhisimpendingexecution.   #  1      ׀ l TheCourtestablishedanewprocedurefordeterminingcompetencytobeexecutedfindingthatthe X  PostConvictionActdidnotcontemplatesuchaproceeding.TheCourtstated: D! __8  8`    PostConvictionreliefisgrantedwhenaprisonersconviction #l! orsentenceisvoidorvoidablebecauseoftheabridgmentofanyright $X" guaranteedbytheTennesseeorUnitedStatesConstitution.See $D # Tenn.CodeAnn.4030203(1997).Asthetrialcourtinthiscase %0!$ recognized,thefactthatapetitionerspresentmentalconditionbars &"% executiondoesnotrendertheprisonersconvictionorsentencevoid '#& orvoidable.InsteaditsimplypreventstheStatefromcarryingoutthe  sentenceuntiltheprisonerscompetenceisrestored.Aprisoners  competencytobeexecutedisaquestionindependentofthevalidity  oftrialandsentencing,andassuch,notwithinthecontemplationof t theAct.`` x` x 8  8`    Furthermore,theoneyearstatuteoflimitationsforactions 8  underthePostConvictionAct,seeTenn.CodeAnn.4030202(a) $ t (1997),indicatesthattheGeneralAssemblydidnotcontemplatethat  ` postconvictionreliefwouldbeavailableinthiscircumstance.The  L  issueofcompetencytobeexecutedmayariselongaftertheoneyear  8  statutehasexpiredand,infact,isgenerallynotconsideredripeuntil $  executionisimminent. ` x` x Id.at263.((citationomitted)(emphasissupplied))#XXXX1#XXXX#TXX#XXT     Similarly,thequestionofthevalidityofaproceedingtorevokesuspensionofsentenceand p probationisindependentofthevalidityoftrialandsentencing.Alsolikecompetence,theissueof \ thevalidityofarevocationproceedingmayoftenariselongaftertherunningoftheoneyearstatute H oflimitationforpostconvictionattackontheconvictionandoriginalsentence.Aseparatetime 4 tableforcollateralattackonrevocationproceedingswouldalsomeanthefilingofmorethanone  p postconvictionproceedingwithrespecttoasingleprosecutionasituationtheGeneralAssembly  \ clearlysoughttoavoid.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030202(c).(Thispartcontemplatesthefilingof H onlyone(1)petitionforpostconvictionrelief.) 4   ItistruethatthisCourthasinthepastentertainedonthemeritspostconvictionproceedings   arisingoutofprobationrevocationcases.See,e.g.,Masseyv.State,929S.W.2d399(Tenn._Crim_.  App.1996);Statev.SamuelK.Robinson,No.M199900559CCAMR3PC,2001WL839639  (Tenn._Crim_.App.July25,2001);Richard_Janak_Ԁv.CharlesJones,Warden,et.al,No.01C019609  CC00390,1997WL576491(Tenn._Crim_.App.Sept.18,1997);Richard_Kiser_Ԁv.State,No.01C01 l 9503CC0007100082,1995WL715510(Tenn._Crim_.App.Dec.6,1995).Inthesecaseshowever X  thequestionofwhetherthePostConvictionActappliedtoprobationrevocationwasnotaddressed D! bythepartiesortheCourt.Thesecasesthereforedonotstandforacontrarypositiontothat 0"  announcedbytheCourttoday. #l!   WethereforeholdthattheTennesseePostConvictionProcedures_Act_Ԁdoesnotpermitthe $D # filingofapetitionunderitsprovisionstoattackcollaterallythevalidityofaproceedingtorevoke %0!$ thesuspensionofsentenceand/orprobation.Thetrialcourtthereforecorrectlydismissedthe &"% petitionforpostconvictionreliefinthiscaseandthatjudgmentisaffirmed. '#&  h+&* @PP WritofHabeasCorpus    Thepetitionisthiscaseisalternativelystyledasapetitionforthewritofhabeascorpus.  HabeasCorpusreviewisgovernedinTennesseebyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection2921101. t Unfortunatelyfortheappellanthereinthatactpermitscollateralattacksonlywhenitappearsfrom ` thefaceofthejudgmentortherecordoftheproceedingsthatatrialcourtwaswithoutjurisdiction L  tosentenceadefendantorthatasentenceofimprisonmentorotherrestrainthasexpired.Wyattv. 8  State,24S.W.3d319(Tenn.2000). $ t   Neitherofthesescenariosispresentedinthiscase.Thejudgmentsrevokingprobationappear  L  validontheirface.ThisCourtdoesnothaveatranscriptoftheprobationrevocationproceedings  8  beforeusandwemustthereforepresumetheactionsofthetrialjudgetobecorrect.SeeState_v._ $  _Oody_,823S.W.2d554(Tenn._Crim_.App.1991).Therefore,thetrialcourtalsoproperlydismissed   thepetitioninsofarasitmightbeconsideredapetitionforthewritofhabeascorpus.   @$$%Conclusion     InlightoftheforegoingthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED. \    `     h #XXXXV1##TXX1#XXT   `     h     ___________________________________ 4    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE