WPC< SO.lXї\۪?*ZvnL)Jx͆dp)(=[U/A!h8X oh;< /1ϊ()|8jQ" צ\ixc#V5ЮvF! (*,bIY3{; ;%R=|0:[=!9Z.~z O}~ɥv&A~0=Ug6v.b^L䵁gUx9d4LLCd6g2bNUvpûWbPi'cB^%$g#)B]e\%QnQtF6ۛP+И1DAEFWD 뛩YfcGfV+{9$M5.s& $ ;'yn-M \B3ayJFUN %" 0((FPw@4U:U:;bu 0 D}U@U: b  # U@9 Ly  U:D*"8J/ZU:U: 0UN U:!JK!UN" B"U:#U::#t# D3v$&$#'UN(U:@)z)UNd,U:,U:,#&-U:I.D.UN0U:1O1UN5U:h5&5UN8U:9 AQP99 0Dg: 0D: 0D: D/3; Bb;;U:<(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($c:\office\wpwin\template\order.wpt qrsDtuuevӀӀy&3|x,  AZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular- -(#$  0  )L  Z (CG Times Regular   MY$XX   3    ArticleI,15oftheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesthat theprivilegeofthewritof `  HabeasCorpusshallnotbesuspended,unlesswhenincaseofrebellionorinvasion,theGeneralAssemblyshalldeclarethepublicsafetyrequiresit.+K AZ"Arial Regular- -    )L  Z (CG Times Regular B  MY$XX   2     Thedefendantswerealsoconvictedofarmedrobbery,butthisCourtvacatedtherobbery `  convictionsafterconcludingthatdualconvictionsforfelonymurderandtheunderlyingfelonyviolatedoublejeopardyprinciples.ThisportionofthedecisioninBriggswassubsequentlyoverruledin   Statev.Blackburn,694S.W.2d934(Tenn.1985).   MY$XX   7    EveryactoftheGeneralAssemblyispresumptivelyconstitutionaluntilcondemnedby `  judicialpronouncement.Seee.g.StateexrelBarkerv.Harmon,882S.W.2d352,356(Tenn. (  1994);Franksv.State,772S.W.2d428,431(Tenn.1989);CumberlandCapitalCorp.v.Patty,556   S.W.2d516,540(Tenn.1977);Claybrookv.State,164Tenn.440,51S.W.2d499(1932);Roberts  X v.RoaneCounty,160Tenn.109,23S.W.2d239(1929).+K AZ"Arial Regular :  MY$XX   9    Cf.Stateexrel.Newsomv.Biggers,911S.W.2d715(Tenn.1995)(convictionsrendered `  byajudgewhowasnotelectedinaccordancewithstatelawarenotvoid);Bankstonv.State,908 (  S.W.2d194(Tenn.1995)(convictionsrenderedbyamunicipaljudgenotelectedinaccordancewiththeTennesseeConstitutionarenotvoid).   MY$!XX !  5    "Thecurrentstatuteoflimitationsisoneyear.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030202(1997 `  Repl.).Thisstatutewasadoptedin1995andreplacedthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationswhichisapplicableinthisappeal.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(1982Repl.)(repealed1995).  `    MY$XX   10     ThefactthatGwinssentencewascommutedbyGovernorBlantononJanuary15,1979, `  doesnotaffectouranalysis.EventhoughhewasnotincarceratedinTennessee,Gwinscommutationwasconditionalandsubjecttobeingrevoked.Accordingly,hewasentitledtofileapostconvictionpetitionunderthisCourtsdecisioninStatev.McCraw,551S.W.2d692(Tenn.  X 1977),inwhichwedefinedthephrase incustodyinthepostconvictionstatuteoflimitationstomean anypossibilityofrestraintonliberty.Id.at694;seealsoAlbertv.State,813S.W.2d426, H  427(Tenn.1991)(decliningtoreverseMcCraw).# #   MY$XX   5    0Thecurrentstatuteoflimitationsisoneyear.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030202(1997 `  Repl.).Thisstatutewasadoptedin1995andreplacedthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationswhichisapplicableinthisappeal.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(1982Repl.)(repealed1995).   ғ$XX   1      OralargumentswereheardinthiscaseonApril15,1999inSavannah,HardinCounty,as `  partofthisCourtsS.C.A.L.E.S.( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal E ducationfor S tudents)project.   ThisCourtappointedMartiL.Kaufmantorepresentthepetitionersinthisappeal.TheCourtappreciatesMs.Kaufmanswillingnesstoacceptthisappointmentandtheexcellentrepresentationshehasprovidedthepetitioners.#  #  Ԁ#  # @  MY$XX   4    1Priorto1995,thePostConvictionProceduresActwascodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.4030 `  101etseq. %  MY$XX   8    Dykes,978S.W.2dat529;Archer,851S.W.2dat16164;Bowen,488S.W.2dat375.+K AZ"Arial Regular+K AZ"Arial Regular(WG2ғ$ !  XX   0  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular+K AZ"Arial Regular @  MY$$XX $  4    &Priorto1995,thePostConvictionProceduresActwascodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.4030 `  101etseq.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular d+K AZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular ?"  EXXXXE XEX   Ad FILEDEXXE   June21,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh %%%%'dxd   MY$XX   11     Infact,bythetimeGwinandTaylorfiledtheirpetitions,thethreeyearstatuteoflimitations `  hadbeenrepealedandreplacedbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitationswhichbecameeffectiveinMayof1995.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(1997Repl.).ThisCourtheldinCarter,952S.W.2dat   418,thatthenewoneyearstatutedoesnotprovideanadditionalyeartofilepostconvictionpetitionstopersons,suchasTaylorandGwin,forwhomthestatuteoflimitationsexpiredbeforetheeffectivedateofthenewstatute.# #   MY$,XX ,  6    -Tenn.CodeAnn.393802(1975Repl.)(repealed1989).#, #(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular   MY$/XX /  7    3EveryactoftheGeneralAssemblyispresumptivelyconstitutionaluntilcondemnedby `  judicialpronouncement.Seee.g.StateexrelBarkerv.Harmon,882S.W.2d352,356(Tenn. (  1994);Franksv.State,772S.W.2d428,431(Tenn.1989);CumberlandCapitalCorp.v.Patty,556   S.W.2d516,540(Tenn.1977);Claybrookv.State,164Tenn.440,51S.W.2d499(1932);Roberts  X v.RoaneCounty,160Tenn.109,23S.W.2d239(1929).(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular+K AZ"Arial Regular+K AZ"Arial Regular   MY$XX   6     Tenn.CodeAnn.393802(1975Repl.)(repealed1989).# #+K AZ"Arial Regular :  MY$5XX 5  9    6Cf.Stateexrel.Newsomv.Biggers,911S.W.2d715(Tenn.1995)(convictionsrendered `  byajudgewhowasnotelectedinaccordancewithstatelawarenotvoid);Bankstonv.State,908 (  S.W.2d194(Tenn.1995)(convictionsrenderedbyamunicipaljudgenotelectedinaccordancewiththeTennesseeConstitutionarenotvoid).(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular+K AZ"Arial Regular   MY$8XX 8  10    9ThefactthatGwinssentencewascommutedbyGovernorBlantononJanuary15,1979, `  doesnotaffectouranalysis.EventhoughhewasnotincarceratedinTennessee,Gwinscommutationwasconditionalandsubjecttobeingrevoked.Accordingly,hewasentitledtofileapostconvictionpetitionunderthisCourtsdecisioninStatev.McCraw,551S.W.2d692(Tenn.  X 1977),inwhichwedefinedthephrase incustodyinthepostconvictionstatuteoflimitationstomean anypossibilityofrestraintonliberty.Id.at694;seealsoAlbertv.State,813S.W.2d426, H  427(Tenn.1991)(decliningtoreverseMcCraw).#8 #(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular   MY$;XX ;  11    <Infact,bythetimeGwinandTaylorfiledtheirpetitions,thethreeyearstatuteoflimitations `  hadbeenrepealedandreplacedbytheoneyearstatuteoflimitationswhichbecameeffectiveinMayof1995.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(1997Repl.).ThisCourtheldinCarter,952S.W.2dat   418,thatthenewoneyearstatutedoesnotprovideanadditionalyeartofilepostconvictionpetitionstopersons,suchasTaylorandGwin,forwhomthestatuteoflimitationsexpiredbeforetheeffectivedateofthenewstatute.#; #(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular>?@ABC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  CC' dxdP Pd ?"  'XXXX' X'X   Ad FILED'XX'   June21,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular !  uuullu` TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7_XdXXd7   X#XXX XXX X# W=_XXdd=vvvr=D)<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP`  rvr=D)<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP`  rvvvvr=()<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP`  rt=()>.*jx` `@ELs ` 8ttxP` (  tߛ@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  `  @HH) ATJACKSON  L  @00$(HEARDATSAVANNAH)  0      8     FORPUBLICATION    ulluMONTROulluTAYLOR,   8     ) @ Filed: June21,1999  v   0      8     ) Appellant,     8     ) @ # X#XX X# XXX X#SupremeCourt# X#XX X# XXX X# H   0      8     ) @ # X#XX X)# XXX X#No.ullu02S01ullu9806CR00054# X#XX X# XXX X#Ԁ .  ulluVsullu.  0      8     ) @  t    0      8     ) @ Hon.ChrisB.Craft, Z    0      8     ) @ Judge @  STATEOFTENNESSEE,   8     ) @ # X#XX Xd # XXX X# &    0      8     ) @ ulluSHELBYulluCOUNTY     Appellee,     8     ) @ # X#XX X # XXX X#     0      8     ) @ CourtofCriminalAppeals # # X#XX X # XXX X# x AND  0      8     )# X#XX X # XXX X# @ Affirmed. ^   0      8     )# X#XX X# XXX X# D ROBERTIRWINulluGWINullu,   8     ) @  *   0      8     ) Appellee,     8     ) @ Hon.JoeB.Brown,Jr.,# X#XX Xd# XXX X# V   0      8     ) @ Judge# X#XX X# XXX X# < ulluVsullu.  0      8     ) @ # X#XX X# XXX X# "   0      8     ) @ ulluSHELBYulluCOUNTY  STATEOFTENNESSEE,   8     ) @     0      8     ) @ CourtofCriminalAppeals  t  Appellant.     8     ) @ Reversed.   H!  #  !Z    0   # X#XX X# XXX X# FORTAYLORANDulluGWINullu: 8     FORSTATEOFTENNESSEE:  R%  &=&X XMartiL.ulluKaufmanullu     8     JohnKnoxWalkup >&  MONROE,ulluKAUFMANullu&ulluMcGHEEullu 8     AttorneyGeneral&Reporter '! Memphis,Tennessee  0      8     MichaelE.Moore  0      8     SolicitorGeneral  0      8     GordonW.Smith  0      8     AssociateSolicitorGeneral  0      8     Nashville,Tennessee# XX& &=C# &=&X X  0      8     WilliamL.Gibbons t.%*   0      8     DistrictAttorneyGeneral# XX& &=# &=&X X  0      8     ullu30thulluJudicialDistrict 0&,   0      8     # XX& &=*# @    &=&X X # XX& &=# |X X# XX |# |X X@VV( OPINION # XX |#Ԉ 3*0 COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSAFFIRMEDASTOTAYLOR;REVERSEDASTOGWIN;W`   W `   vW`   W `   vPOSTCONVICTIONPETITIONSDISMISSED. @   DROWOTA, H! J. ;B28 W`   W`   vW`   v# X#XX X# Thesoleissueinthisconsolidatedappealiswhetherasentenceimposed `  underastatutewhichwassubsequentlydeclaredunconstitutionalbythisCourtconstitutesanillegalsentence,whichisvoid,andmaybechallengedandcorrectedatanytimewithoutregardtothepostconvictionstatuteoflimitations.Becausethestatutehadnotbeendeclaredunconstitutionalpriortothetimethesentenceswereimposed,thesentencesarenotillegalandthusvoid.Theyareinsteadvoidablesentenceswhichmustbechallengedwithinthetimeprescribedbythepostconvictionstatuteoflimitations.Sincethepetitionsinthiscasewerefiledbeyondtheapplicablethreeyearpostconvictionstatuteoflimitations,thetrialcourtsproperlydismissedthepetitions.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsmodifyingGwinssentencetolifeimprisonmentisreversedandthejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissingthepetitionisreinstated.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmingthetrialcourtsdismissalofMontroTaylorspetitionisaffirmed.  #  1       !` @||- XXX X#  XXI#XX  $## X#XXX## . %  @% FACTUALBACKGROUND  (  @$$'A.RobertGwin ) "  OnJanuary5,1972,anemployeeofagrocerystoreinMemphiswasshotandkilledduringarobberyofthestore.RobertGwinwastriedforthemurder,  X    X  v     vandonMay21,1973,aMemphisjuryfoundGwinguiltyoffirstdegreemurderin / &(   X    X    X  v  X    X    X  vu  X  utheperpetrationofafelonyandsentencedhimto100yearsimprisonment.Onappeal,theconvictionandsentencewereaffirmed.Gwinv.State,523S.W.2d @  636(Tenn.llCrimll.llAppll.1975),cert.denied(Tenn.1975).Fouryearslater,in   Januaryof1979,formerGovernorRayllBlantonllcommutedGwinssentencetotimeserved.OnApril21,1994,theTennesseeBoardofPardonsandParolesregainedcustodyofGwinfromtheGeorgiaDepartmentofCorrectionsduetoanallegedcommutationviolation.OnDecember20,1994,llthenllGovernorNedllMcWherterllrevokedGwinscommutationtherebyreinstatingtheoriginal100yearsentence. OnNovember11,1995,GwinfiledaprollsellpetitionforpostconvictionreliefchallengingthevalidityofhissentenceonthegroundthatllthestatuteunderwhichitwasimposedllllhadbeenlldeclaredunconstitutionalbythisCourt. H! The  trialcourtdismissedGwinspetition,andGwinappealed.RelyinguponStatev. !` Burkhart,566S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.1978),inwhichthiscourtstatedthatan #@ illegalsentenceisvoidandmaybechallengedandcorrectedatanytime,theCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedthetrialcourtsjudgment,heldthepetitionwasnottimebarredbythepostconvictionstatuteoflimitations,andmodifiedGwinssentencetolifeimprisonment.Thereafter,wegrantedtheStatesapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.@&B.MontroTaylor 0`'*  OnDecember19,1971,MontroTaylor,HughBriggs,andanunidentifiedaccomplicerobbedasupermarketinMemphisandkilledtheproducemanagerof 4 +. thestore.OnJuly1,1976,TaylorandBriggswereconvictedofmurderintheperpetrationofarobbery.Thejuryimposeda199yearsentenceforeachmurderconviction,andthisCourtaffirmedtheconvictionsandsentencesonappeal.Briggsv.State,573S.W.2d157(Tenn.1978).  %  2          OnJanuary27,1997,Taylorfiledthis,hisllfirstllpetitionforpostconvictionreliefchallengingthevalidityofhissentenceonthegroundllthatitwasimposedpursuanttoastatutellllthathadbeendeclaredunconstitutionalbythisCourt.Thetrialcourtdismissedthepetition,andtheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthedismissal,concludingthatthepetitionistimebarredbythepostconvictionstatuteoflimitations. Taylorfiledanapplicationforpermissiontoappeal,whichwegrantedandconsolidatedwiththeStatesappealinGwin.Wemustnowdeterminewhethera !` sentenceimposedunderastatutelaterdeclaredunconstitutionalbythisCourtis(1)voidandillegalandsubjecttobeingcorrectedatanytimeregardlessofthe %  postconvictionstatuteoflimitationsor(2)voidableandsubjecttothepost `'  convictionstatuteoflimitations.  .%( @,  X XX X&  ٯ  X XII.# X X  ٯ5## X&X X X5#Ԁ `   @&LEGALBACKGROUND     Toplacethisissueincontext,wewillbrieflysummarizethehistoricaleventswhichculminatedinthisCourtsdecisioninMillerv.State,584S.W.2d758 @ (Tenn.1979),thatdeclaredthestatuteunderwhichthepetitionersweresentencedunconstitutional. Priorto1829,thecommonlawcrimeofmurderinTennesseewaspunishableonlybyasentenceofdeath.Brattonv.State,29Tenn.(10Hum.)ll  102,10506(1849).In1829,theGeneralAssemblyenactedastatutewhichdividedthecrimeintofirstandseconddegreemurder,withthedeathpenaltyreservedasthepunishmentforfirstdegreemurder.1829Tenn.Pub.Acts23.The1829Actalsoprovidedthat [e]verypersonconvictedofthecrimeofmurderinthefirstdegree,orasaccessorybeforethefacttosuchcrime,shallsufferdeathbyhangingbytheneck.Id.at4.In1913,themethodofexecutionwas @$ changedfromhangingtoelectrocution.1913Tenn.Pub.Acts36.Twoyearslater,in1915,theGeneralAssemblyabolishedthedeathpenaltyformurderandreplaceditwithamandatorysentenceoflifeimprisonment.1915Tenn.Pub.Acts181.However,thedeathpenaltywasreinstatedasapossiblepunishmentforfirstdegreemurderfouryearslater,in1919,byastatutewhichaffordedthejurydiscretiontoimposethedeathpenalty,orifmitigatingcircumstanceswerefound,thejuryhaddiscretiontoimposeasentenceoflifeimprisonmentorimprisonmentforanytermovertwentyyears.1919Tenn.Pub.Actsll5,llll1.ll  5+.  BothGwinandTaylorweresentencedpursuanttotheprovisionsofthe1919llActllwhichllwerellineffectatthetimetheseoffensesoccurredin1971and1972. InJuneof1972,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldtheGeorgiadeathpenaltystatuteviolativeoftheEighthAmendmentsprohibitionagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentbecauseitentrustedthelifeordeathdecisiontotheunfettereddiscretionofthejury.Furmanv.Georgia,408U.S.238,92S.Ct.   2726,33L.Ed.2d346(1972).TheGeorgiastatutewasrepresentativeoftheotherdeathpenaltystatutesineffectthroughoutthecountry,includingTennessee. RespondingtotheFurmandecision,theGeneralAssemblyin1973,  enactedalawcreatinganewcapitalsentencingschemewhich,amongotherthings,revisedthepossiblepunishmentsforfirstdegreemurdertodeath,lifeimprisonment,orimprisonmentforsomeperiodovertwentyfiveyears.1973Tenn.Pub.Actsll192.However,llin1974,thisCourtstruckdownthe1973ActasviolativeofArticleII,17oftheTennesseeConstitutionbecauseitsprovisionsembracedmorethanonesubjectandnotallofthesubjectmatterwassetforthinthecaption.Statev.Hailey,505S.W.2d712(Tenn.1974).  +!$  InresponsetoHailey,theGeneralAssemblypassedlegislationwhich .%( amendedthedefinitionoffirstdegreemurderandmandatedadeathpenaltyforallpersonsconvictedoffirstdegreemurderandforallpersonsconvictedasanaccessorybeforethefactoffirstdegreellmurder.1974llTenn.Pub.Acts.462.The 4 +. 1974ActwasheldunconstitutionalbythisCourtinCollinsv.State,550S.W.2d `  ll643ll(Tenn.1977),becausetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,inthreedecisions,hadinvalidated,asviolativeoftheEighthandFourteenthAmendments,llsimilarstatutesllprescribingamandatorysentenceoflldeath.SeeWoodsonv.North  Carolina,428U.S.280,96S.Ct.2978,49L.Ed.2d944(1976);Robertsv.  Louisiana,428U.S.325,96S.Ct.3001,49L.Ed.2d974(1976);Williamsv. `  Oklahoma,428U.S.907,96S.Ct.3218,49L.Ed.2d1215(1976). @   TheCollinscourtexplainedthatitsdecisiondeclaringthe1974Act ` unconstitutionalhadtheeffectofrevivingthenondeathpenaltysentencingprovisionsofthe1919Act,whichallowedajurytosentenceapersonconvictedoffirstdegreemurdertolifeimprisonmentorsomeotherperiodofimprisonmentovertwentyyears.Twoyearslater,however,in1979,thisCourtinMillerheldthe  entire1919ActinvalidbecausetheActdidnothaveaseverabilityclausewhichallowedthisCourttoelidethedeathpenaltyprovisionsandupholdthenoncapitalsentencingprovisions.Miller,594S.W.2dat765.TheMillercourtexplainedthat %  itsholdinghadtheeffectofrevivingthe1915Actwhichprovidedamandatorysentenceoflifeimprisonmentforallpersonsconvictedoffirstdegreemurder.Id. @)" Accordingly,thisCourts1979decisioninMillerstruckdownthe1919statute  +!$ underwhichGwinhadbeensentencedtoa100yeartermin1973andTaylorhadbeensentencedtoa199yeartermin1976. 4 +. @,@@,  X XX X&  ٯ  X XIII.# X X  ٯK## X&X X XK#Ԉ `  @!VOIDORVOIDABLESENTENCES     Inthisappeal,theStatecontendsthatthepetitionerssentencesarenotillegalbecausethe1919statutewaspresumptivelyconstitutionalatthetimethesentenceswereimposed.Therefore,theStatearguesthatthesentencesarenotvoidandsubjecttobeingcorrectedatanytime,butare,instead,merelyvoidableandsubjecttobeingcorrectedonlyifchallengedinatimelypostconvictionpetition.Sincethepostconvictionpetitionsinthesecaseswerefiledbeyondthestatuteoflimitations,theStatearguesthattheclaimsaretimebarredandshouldnotbeconsidered.Incontrast,TaylorandGwinarguethattheStateisimposinganoverlynarrowinterpretationontoStatev.Burkhart,566S.W.2d871,873 ` (Tenn.1978).Accordingtothepetitioners,asentenceisillegalandvoidifthestatuteunderwhichthesentenceisimposedissubsequentlydeclaredunconstitutionalbythisCourt. TherearetwoprimaryproceduralavenuesavailableinTennesseetocollaterallyattackaconvictionandsentencewhichhavebecomefinalhabeascorpusandpostconviction.Theseproceduralvehiclesaretheoreticallyandstatutorilydistinct.Pottsllv.State,833S.W.2d60,62(Tenn.1992).Therightto +`"$ seekhabeascorpusreliefisguaranteedbyArticleI,15oftheTennesseeConstitution.  %  3      ׀TheproceduresapplicabletoseekingthewritarecodifiedatTenn. / &( CodeAnn.2921101etseq.Significantly,thereisnostatutorytimelimitation `1(* whichappliestobarthellfilingllofawritofhabeascorpus.However,inTennesseegroundsuponwhichhabeascorpusreliefwillbegrantedareverynarrow.Thewritwillissue onlywhenitappearsuponthefaceofthejudgmentortherecordoftheproceedingsuponwhichthejudgmentisrenderedthataconvictingcourtwaswithoutjurisdictionorauthoritytosentenceadefendant,orthatadefendantssentenceofimprisonmentorotherrestrainthasexpired.Archerv.State,851 `  S.W.2d157,164(Tenn.1993)(quotingStatev.llGallowayll,45Tenn.(5Cold.)326, @  33637(1868)).Inotherwords,ahabeascorpuspetitionmayonlybeutilizedtosuccessfullycontestvoid,asopposedtovoidable,judgments.Potts,833S.W.2d ` at62.Avoidjudgmentisoneinwhichthejudgmentisfaciallyinvalidbecausethecourtlackedjurisdictionorauthoritytorenderthejudgmentorbecausethedefendantssentencehasexpired.Dykesv.Compton,978S.W.2d528,529  (Tenn.1998);Archer,851S.W.2dat16164.   Incontrast,theauthorizedavenueforattackingavoidablejudgmentisapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Statev.llMcClintockll,732S.W.2d268,272 %  (Tenn.1987).Avoidableconvictionorsentenceisonewhichisfaciallyvalidandrequirestheintroductionofproofbeyondthefaceoftherecordorjudgmenttoestablishitsinvalidity.Dykes,978S.W.2dat529;Archer,851S.W.2dat16164.  +!$ Recognizingthenarrowscopeofreliefavailableunderthewritofhabeascorpus,theGeneralAssembly,in1967,enactedtheTennesseePostConvictionProcedureActwhichisnowcodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.4030201etseq.lllll#l  %  4      ll 0`'* Unlikehabeascorpuspetitioners,personsfilingapostconvictionpetitionmaychallengeconvictionsthatareallegedtobeeithervoidorvoidablebecauseoftheabridgementofconstitutionalrights.Tenn.CodeAnn.ll4030203(1997Repl.)[previouslyuucodirfrsrurstiteduuuuatTenn.CodeAnn.4030105(1982Repl.)(repealed1995)];Potts,ll833S.W.2dat62.llAlsounlikehabeascorpus,llthereisallstatuteof  limitationswhichgovernsthefilingofpostconvictionpetitions.llll  %  5       `   Weemphasize,however,thatthestatuteoflimitationsforfilingpostconvictionpetitionsinnowayprecludesthefilingofpetitionsforhabeascorpuswhichcontestvoidjudgments.Evenifapostconvictionpetitionisdismissedasuntimely,aprisonermayassertinapetitionforawritofhabeascorpusthathisconvictionisvoidorthatheisbeingillegallyorwrongfullyrestrained.Potts,833  S.W.2dat62.   Consideringthesewellsettledprinciplesoflaw,itisclearthatthe #@ dispositiveissueinthiscaseiswhetherthepetitionerssentencesarevoidorvoidable.Ifthesentencesarevoid,theymaybecontested,withoutregardtothepostconvictionstatuteoflimitations,bywayofapetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.However,ifthesentencesarevoidable,theymayonlybechallengedbythefilingofapetitionforpostconvictionreliefwhichissubjecttothestatuteoflimitations. InthisCourt,thepetitionersprimarilyrelyuponthisCourtsdecisionin 0`'* Burkhartassupportfortheirargumentthatthesentencesarevoidandillegaland `  subjecttocorrectionwithoutregardtothepostconvictionstatuteoflimitations.Id.,566S.W.2dat873.TheStaterespondsthatasentenceisvoidandillegal   underBurkhartonlyifthesentenceisindirectcontraventionofastatutein  existenceatthetimethesentenceisimposed.WeagreewiththeStatescontention. InBurkhart,thedefendantescapedfromprisonwhiletheappealofhis   burglaryconvictionwaspending.Burkhartwasapprehendedandpledguiltytotheoffenseofescape,andthejudgmentofconvictionprovidedthatthesentencebeservedconcurrentlywiththesentencefortheburglaryconviction.However,thejudgmentwasindirectcontraventionofastatutel2ll+l  %  6      ׀whichrequiredthata  sentenceforanescapeconvictionbeservedconsecutivetothesentencefortheoriginaloffense.ThestatutewasineffectatthetimethetrialcourtpurportedtoimposeaconcurrentsentenceonBurkhartsescapeconviction. AfterreceivingnoticefromtheDepartmentofCorrectionsthathewouldberequiredtoserveaconsecutivesentenceinaccordancewiththestatute,ratherthantheconcurrentsentenceimposedbythetrialcourtjudgment,Burkhartfiledaprose petitionandaskedthetrialcourttoordertheDepartmentofCorrectionstocomplywiththejudgmentimposingaconcurrentsentence.ThetrialcourtnotedthestatuterequiringconsecutivesentencinganddismissedBurkhartspetition.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedandheldthatatrialjudgecouldnot 2@), correctajudgmentafterithadbecomefinal. ThisCourtgrantedreviewandreversedthedecisionoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsstating,8 Inholdingasitdid,thecourtbelowreliedonuunmmStinsonnnStnpnenpqiqnnsonnuuuuv.State XXX X&,108  Tenn.159,344S.W.2d369(1961).# X&XX Xk#Thatreliancewasmisplaced. r  InnStinsonnnStensonn,thecourtcorrectlyrefusedtoalterajudgmentthat, d  althoughincorrect,wasinconformitywithapplicablestatutesandhadbecomefinal.Wearenotfacedwiththatsituationhere,forintheinstantcasethejudgmententeredinthetrialcourtonOctober10,1975,wasindirectcontraventionoftheexpressprovisionsofuoouT.C.A.393802,andconsequentlywasanullity.Asageneralrule,atrialjudgemaycorrectanillegal,asopposedtoamerelyerroneous,sentenceatanytime,evenifithasbecomefinal.  ! ! j566S.W.2dat873.Inourview,thislanguageclearlyindicatesthatasentenceisvoidandillegalonlyifitisindirectcontraventionofastatutewhichisinexistenceatthetimethesentenceisimposed.SuchaninterpretationalsoisconsistentwiththisCourtsdiscussionofvoidjudgmentsinArcher.There,weconsideredthe !d caseofHendersonv.Stateexrel.Lance,220Tenn.520,419S.W.2d176(1967), #D andobservedthatthejudgmentinHendersonwasvoidbecausethetrialcourt %$ hadnolegalauthoritytoimposeaconcurrentsentencewhenastatutemandatedaconsecutivesentence.851S.W.2dat163.OurresearchrevealsthatinallcaseswhereasentencehasbeenheldillegalandvoidunderBurkhart,the $+!$ sentencedirectlycontravenedastatuteinexistenceatthetimeitwasimposed.Seee.g.Statev.Burris,950S.W.2d42,43(Tenn.Crim.App.1996)(split .%( confinementserviceofasentenceinexcessoffiveyearsisillegalwherethestatuteonlyallowedforsplitconfinementserviceofsentencesfiveyearsorless);Taylorv.Morgan,909S.W.2d17,20(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)(concurrent 4$+. sentenceillegalinthefaceofastatutemandatingconsecutivesentencing);State `  v.Clayton,480S.W.2d922(Tenn.Crim.App.1971)(grantofparolevoidwhere @  statuteprecludedparoleforfeloniesinvolvingasentenceinexcessoftenyearsandtherobberyconvictionatissuehadapossiblesentenceoffifteenyears). Thepetitionershavenotcited,andourresearchhasnotrevealed,asinglecaseholdingthatasentenceisillegalunderBurkhartbecausethestatuteunder @  whichthesentencewasimposedwaslaterdeclaredunconstitutionalinanothercase.OneTennesseedecisionwhichaddressesasimilarissuesupportstheoppositeproposition. InBowenv.State,488S.W.2d373(Tenn.1972),thisCourtconsidered  whetherthedecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinFurmanautomatically  invalidatedBowensdeathsentence.InconcludingthatFurmandidnotresultin !` anautomaticinvalidation,thisCourtstated:8 Theanswertothe...questionmustbethatthejudgmentsenteredbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtintheFurman,Jackson,and p& Branchcaseshadnodirecteffectwhatsoeveronthejudgmentin `'  thiscase.P(! ! ! @+****8 Thereisnocaseinpointtociteinsupportofthisstatement.Itissupported,however,byacceptedfundamentalrulesoflawrelatingtothefinalityofjudgments.Thispropositionisstatedin46Am.Jur.2d,Judgments,14,p.322,thisway:  ! ! 8 80 ! !Indeed,itisageneralprinciplethatwhereacourthasjurisdictionoverthepersonandthesubjectmatter,andthejudgmentrenderedisnotinexcessofthejurisdictionorpowerofthecourt,noerrororirregularitycanmakethejudgmentvoid.Suchajudgmentmay 4 +. be,underpropercircumstances,voidable,butuntil p5,/ avoidedisregardedasvalid.󀀀` 0 h0 h px488S.W.2dat375(emphasisadded). Applyingthesewellsettledprinciplesoflawtothefactsinthiscase,itisclearthatthepetitionerssentencesarenotvoidandillegal.WhenTaylorandGwinweresentenced,thetrialcourtshadjurisdiction,andthesentencesimposedplainlywerenotinexcessofthepunishmentsauthorizedbythe1919Act.The1919ActwaspresumptivelyconstitutionaluntildeclaredunconstitutionalbythisCourtsdecisioninMiller.uuu.u  %  7      uuWhileatrialcourthasnolegalauthoritytoimposea P sentencethatiscontrarytogoverninglaw,x  %  8      ׀asentenceimposedinaccordance 0 withthestatuteineffectatthetimeofitsimpositionisnotvoidmerelybecausethestatuteislaterdeclaredunconstitutional.Suchasentenceisinsteadvoidableiftimelychallengedinapostconvictionproceeding.uuuuu4u  %  9      uu  p  Therefore,wemustnextdetermineiftheuupetitionsuuinuutheseuuuucasesuuweretimelyfiledwithinthethreeyearpostconvictionstatuteoflimitations.Asoriginallyenactedin1967,thePostConvictionProcedureActcontainednostatuteoflimitations.However,effectiveJuly1,1986,theGeneralAssemblyadopteda 0* # threeyearstatuteoflimitationswhichprovided:8 Aprisonerincustodyunderasentenceofacourtofthisstatemustpetitionforpostconvictionreliefunderthischapterwithinthree(3)yearsofthedateofthefinalactionofthehigheststatecourttowhichanappealistakenorconsiderationofsuchpetitionshallbebarred.  ! ! Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102uu(1982uuuuRepl.)uu(repealeduu1995);Carteruuuuv.State,952  S.W.2d417,418(Tenn.1997).Thisstatutewasjudiciallygivenprospectiveapplicationonly.Seee.g.uuAbstonuuuuv.State,749S.W.2d487,488(Tenn.Crim. @  App.1988).Therefore,anypersonwhosejudgmentbecamefinalonorbeforeJuly1,1986,haduntilJuly1,1989,tofileapetitionforpostconvictionreliefchallengingavoidorvoidablejudgment.Carter,952S.W.2dat418. @  Returningtothefactsofthiscase,wenotethatthe dateofthefinalactionofthehigheststateappellatecourtinGwinscasewasMay12,1975,whenthisCourtuudeniedreview.The dateofthefinalactionofthehigheststateappellatecourtinTaylorscasewasNovember20,1978,whenthisCourtrendereditsdecisioninBriggs.EvenassumingthatGwinandTaylordidnotbecomeawareof %  thegroundforreliefuponwhichtheynowrelyuntilApril2,1979,whenthisCourtrendereditsdecisioninMiller,GwinhadmorethanfourteenyearsandTaylorhad @)" morethantenyearswithinwhichtofileapetitionforpostconvictionreliefbeforethethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsexpiredin1989.uuu7u  %  10      uuYet,Gwindidnotfilea -#& petitionuntilNovember16,1995,oversixyearsafterexpirationofthethreeyearstatuteoflimitations.TaylordidnotfileapetitionuntilJanuary27,1997,morethansevenyearsafterthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationshadexpired.uuu*uu:u  %  11      ׀Clearly,   thepetitionswerefiledbeyondtheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.uuuu$XP(XX$uu Moreover,thisisnotasituationinwhichdueprocessprecludesstrictapplicationofthethreeyearstatuteoflimitations.Seee.g.Sandsv.State,903 @  S.W.2d291(Tenn.1995);Burfordv.State,845S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992).Asthis   CourtexplainedinSands,dueprocessprohibitsthestrictapplicationofthethree ` yearstatuteoflimitationswhenthegroundforrelief,whetherlegalorfactual,arisesafterthepointatwhichthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun.ThegroundforreliefuponwhichtheclaimsinthisappealarebasedarosewhenthisCourtrendereditsdecisioninMillerin1979.Thethreeyearstatuteof  limitationsdidnotbegintorunwithrespecttoeitherGwinorTayloruntilJuly1,1986,sevenyearsafterMillerwasdecided. #@  uuWeuualsorejectuutheuuargumentthatGovernoruuMcWherteruusrevocationofuuGwinsuuuuuucommutationconstitutesuuuua laterarisinggroundforrelief.Aspreviouslystated,GwinsclaimthathissentenceisunconstitutionalarosewhenthisCourtrendereditsdecisioninMiller.uuTheclaimisuuuunotderivedfromtherevocationof -#& commutation.Gwincitesnoauthoritytosupportthepropositionthatthestatuteof .%( limitationswastolledduringthetimehewasreleasedpursuanttothecommutation.Indeed,uutheholdingin,McGraw,551S.W.2dat694,supportsthe @  oppositeproposition.Sincetheconditionalcommutationconstitutedapossiblerestraintonhisliberty,Gwinwas incustodyforpurposesofthepostconvictionstatuteoflimitations.Therefore,hewasbothentitledandrequiredtofileapetitionwithintheapplicablestatutorytimeperiod.SeeFootnote10,supra. `   Moreover,thePostConvictionProcedureActisamechanismbywhichfinalcourtjudgmentsmaybechallenged.Indeed,thethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsspecificallyaccruedupon thedateofthefinalactionofthehigheststateappellatecourttowhichanappealistaken.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102   (1982Repl.)(repealed1995).TheuuuuActisnotdesignedorintendedtoallowaprisonertochallengeaGovernorsdecisiontorevokeacommutation.Infact,thisCourtrecentlystatedinCarrollv.uuRaneyuuuu,953S.W.2duu657,659uuuu(Tenn.1997),that !` theGovernorspowertograntcommutationsislimitedonlybythelanguageintheStateConstitutionandmaynotberegulatedorcontrolledbyotherbranchesofgovernment. WealsorecognizedinCarrollthat,inexercisinguucommutationuuuupower,the  +!$ Governorisnotboundbythestatuteswhichwouldbindcourtsandjuries.WespecificallyheldinCarrollthattheGovernorhadthepowertograntacommuted .%( sentenceof 22yearstolifeeventhoughtheapplicablestatutesprecludedacourtorajuryfromimposinganindeterminatesentencefortheoffense.Insoholding,wespecificallyapprovedadecisionoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals, 4 +. Statev.Fields,925S.W.2d561(Tenn.Crim.App.1996),inwhichtheGovernor `  hadcommutedadeathsentencetoatermof99years.Asinthiscase,thepetitionerinFields,soughtpostconvictionreliefonthebasisthattheonlyother   legallyeffectivesentenceforfirstdegreemurderatthetimeofhisconvictionwaslifeuuimprisonment.uuuuInCarroll,thisCourtquoteduuwithapprovaltheuuuufollowing  rationale,relieduponbytheintermediatecourtinFieldstorejectthepetitioners `  uuclaim:uu8 Theonlysentencethatcouldlegallyhavebeenorderedbyajudgeorjurywaslifeimprisonment.Weconclude,however,thatthesecasesandthelawsetforththereindonotandcannotrestricttheconstitutionalauthorityoftheGovernortocommuteadefendantssentencetoatermlessthanlife....@ ! ! NCarroll,953S.W.2dat661(quotingFields,925S.W.2dat563).Thissame  reasoningappliestothefactsinGwinsappeal.Though,underMiller,uuauuuuperson  beingsentencedtodayincourtforafirstdegreemurdercommittedatthetimethe1919Actwasineffectcouldonlyreceiveasentenceoflifeimprisonment, thesecasesandthelawsetforththereindonotandcannotrestricttheconstitutionalauthorityoftheGovernortocommuteadefendantssentence.Id. p&  Therefore,sincetheclaimsassertedbythepetitionersarenotlaterarising,theydonotfallwithintheruleannouncedinBurfordandappliedinuuSands. ,"% Accordingly,uuuuthepetitionsforpostconvictionrelieffiledbyGwinandTaylorclearlyaretimebarredbythepostconvictionstatuteofuulimitations.uuuu@,,) CONCLUSION  @  30*-  Becausethepetitionerssentencesarevoidableratherthanvoidand p5,/ becausethepetitionersfailedtochallengetheirsentenceswithinthetimeprovidedbythethreeyearpostconvictionstatuteoflimitations,thetrialcourtsproperlydismissedthepetitions.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsmodifyingGwinssentencetolifeimprisonmentisreversedandthejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissingthepetitionisreinstated.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmingthetrialcourtsdismissalofMontroTaylorspetitionisaffirmed.  XXX X&Itappearingthatthepetitionersinthiscauseareindigent,costswillbepaid ` bytheStateofTennessee.  0      8 ____________________________________  0      8 FRANKF.uuDROWOTAuuuu,III,  0      8 JUSTICE uuConcur: uuuu V+!% Anderson,C.J.Birch,Holder,Barker,JJ.5# X&XX X#