WPC=V *Xfw 6}wԫDXZn })@!! bn8D`Q@(WoP^oS~L_42|εX74i!ņN9 -Mې@YelwS&UCR.?d +|gʓyE| ̳ߙ|vyp;ciRU$+?h_"$=as@ڲ5kf-@Gl,cF"K&Ⱦ8 0L{5` klE݊Rk-lGaTFw ߊбFU>-Bek>F!4EGaaN=gTʺ<3@AL5-O_3ıw kYV]j '1 (,gsN h(t-c[4 8_"1=FM^*OQ?}=`;xKAK D(DB}sCx#UNY % 0: UN N5 ^ 7 wC 4G [ j ml b  0UQ  b  w 0&E  0  0 0 0H 0 0 0O 0 0 0 09 0 0 0. 0 0^ 0 0! 0{" 0 D+# 0o# 0$ 0$ 0[% 0% 0& 0' 0' 0( 0>=) 0{) 0s* 0U+ 07, 0- 0- 0. 0/ 02i0 00 0:1 0Y1 0_*2 0 2 03 05 B*7 D/E7 D+t7 07 D/9 09 06: 0: 0:; 0^< 0<x< 1e<U6= 0 O=U>=U**> 1uT> B> 72> 0c?{?2B2CIJPKL AL D5M 0KMNNN AOOBIPQ A8S8S8S8SSSSSSSSSS 0VU\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular~61 Eb0<3|x U- -Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*+ (_2623  ..   - -  R$USUS.,    1  ^6XX  _ArticleI,section15oftheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesthat theprivilegeofthewritofHabeas  Corpusshallnotbesuspended,unlesswhenincaseofrebellionorinvasion,theGeneralAssemblyshalldeclarethe t publicsafetyrequiresit.  R$USUS.,    4  ^6XX  _Wenote,asdidtheCourtofCriminalAppeals,thatthelanguage imprisonedorrestrainedoflibertyused  inTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection2921101(2000),thehabeascorpusstatute,isnotcoextensivewiththe t  personincustodylanguageofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030102(2003)ofthePostConviction 8 ProcedureAct.Thelanguage incustodyhaslongbeenbroadlyconstruedtopermitpersonstocollaterally L challenge,bymeansofapostconvictionpetition,ajudgmentofconvictionthatlatermaybeusedtoenhancea  sentenceonanotherconviction.Suchchallengeshavebeenallowedevenifthesentenceonthechallenged  convictionhasbeenservedorhasexpiredatthetimethepostconvictionpetitionisfiled.See_McCraw_Ԁv.State,551 H  S.W.2d692,694(Tenn.1977);Albertv.State,813S.W.2d426,427(Tenn.1991).Accordingly,Hickmanmaybe  \  incustodyforpurposesofthePostConvictionProceduresAct,butheisneither imprisonednor restrainedof   libertyforpurposesofseekinghabeascorpusrelief.*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (#$  0  (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   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X75+ ` hp x 5  E)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New(.G2$ !USUS.,      0  ^6XX\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) dUi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    R$USUS.,    5  ^6XX  _BecauseHickmanspetitiondoesnotindicatehisplaceofconfinementandbecausethiscasemaybe  resolvedonothergrounds,weneednotconsiderwhethertheCourtofCriminalAppealserredbyimplyingina t footnotethatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection2921102precludespersonsinfederalcustodyfromseeking 8 habeascorpusrelieffromTennesseejudgments.     p      x   L    `  R$USUS.,    8  ^6XX  _SeeWarev._Meharry_ԀMed.College,898S.W.2d181,18384(Tenn.1995).  R$USUS.,    3  ^6XX  _SeeStateexrel._Goss_Ԁv._Heer_,413S.W.2d688,693(1967)(statingthat itispropertodismissapetition  whenthepetitionerfailstocomplywiththemandatoryprovisionsofthe[thestatute]);Johnsonv.Russell,404 t S.W.2d471,473(1966)( Therefore,purelyforthistechnicalreason[failuretoannexacopyofthelegalprocessor 8 judgment]thepetitionforhabeascorpusshouldbedenied....);StateexrelReedv._Heer_,403S.W.2d310,313 L (1966)(notingthatthepetitionerhadfailedtocomplywiththemandatoryprovisionsofthestatute,butresolvingthe  caseonthemerits);Stateexrel.Woodv.Johnson,393S.W.2d135,136(1965)(statingthat thefailuretocomply  with[thestatute]maybegroundsfordismissingthepetition);Stateexrel.Allenv.Johnson,394S.W.2d652,653 H  (1965)(statingthat thetrialjudgewascorrectindismissingthepetitionforfailuretocomplywith[thestatute]);  \ Stateexrel.Kuntzv._Bomar_,381S.W.2d290,291(Tenn.1964)( [T]hepetition...didnotcomplywiththe   provisionsof[thestatute],andforthatreasonalone,itcouldhaveproperlybeendismissedasinsufficient.).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5wbG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKVVVV)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   R$USUS.,    6  ^6XX  _SeeTenn.CodeAnn.396417(b)(1982&1986Supp.). R$USUS.,    7  ^6XX  _SeeTenn.CodeAnn.401109(1982&1986Supp.).wbG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK 8 R$USUS.,    9  ^6XX  _Forpurposesofthisappeal,weassumewithoutdecidingthatHickmanhadarighttotheassistanceof  counselwhenhepleadedguiltytoamisdemeanorin1986.  R$USUS.,    2  ^6XX  _See1967Tenn.Pub.Actsch.310.The1967Actwasamendedinitsentiretyin1995bytheGeneral  Assembly,See1995Tenn.Pub.Acts.ch.207,81,andisnowcodifiedatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections40 t 30101through4030122.wbG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK DrowotaAdolphoTrantNicholsScarlettp]ersonsMcLaneyPottsBatemanMcClintock a]nyDillehay JurMaleng i]nreveal[sZerbst CrimBaldasarcuriamBurgettParkeBoykinRaley a]t T]heHickmanAbston(.3$ !USUS.,  !USUS.,  _XXXXSEXX8XXdd8  '@ #XXSE\#Y XXINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#XXY #SEXXԈ & @!May5,2004Session#XXSE#SEXX#SESE=#SESEԈ L   __ ROGERL._HICKMANv.STATEOFTENNESSEE#XXSE)#  2   AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals #XXXXk#XXXX  n  CriminalCourtforKnoxCounty  Z  @@Nos.74318RayL.Jenkins,Judge F  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200201916SCR11PCFiledSeptember22,_2004_  AV) ` dE<` A     #XXXX#WegrantedRogerL.HickmanpermissiontoappealtoconsiderwhetherthetrialcourtandCourt t ofCriminalAppealserredindismissinghishabeascorpuspetition.Hickmanspetition,prepared ` withtheaidofcounsel,allegedthathis1986misdemeanorconviction,forwhichhereceivedaten L daysuspendedsentence,isvoidbecausethejudgmentdoesnotaffirmativelyindicatethatHickman 8 wasrepresentedbycounselorthathewaivedhisrighttocounsel.Weholdthatthetrialcourtand $t CourtofCriminalAppealsproperlydismissedthepetition.Thepetitionfailedtocomplywiththe ` prescribedstatutoryform,failedtoallegethatHickmanis imprisonedorrestrainedofhisliberty, L asrequiredbyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection2921101(2000),andfailedtoallegegrounds 8 forhabeascorpusrelief.XXXXԀAccordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals. $  Tenn.R.App.P.11;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsAffirmed      #XXX #XXXFrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson, \#" AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined.#XXXX # H$# DouglasA.Trant,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,RogerL.Hickman  &p!% PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;GordonW. 'H#' Smith,AssociateSolicitorGeneral;RandallE.Nichols,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andZaneM. (4$( Scarlett,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee ) %)  @66'OPINION  ,',  -(- Ї@ I.FactsandProceduralHistory     OnJune6,1986,thepetitioner,RogerL.Hickman,pleadedguiltyintheKnoxCounty  GeneralSessionsCourttopossessionofmarijuanaandreceivedatendaysuspendedsentenceand  afiftydollarfine.ThecertifiedcopyofthejudgmentdoesnotindicatewhetherHickmanwas t representedbycounselorwaivedhisrighttocounselthatday. `   Almostsixteenyearslater,onFebruary25,2002,Hickman,byandthroughcounsel,fileda 8  habeascorpuspetitionintheKnoxCountyCriminalCourtchallengingthevalidityofhis1986 $ t conviction.Hickmanspetitionassertedthatthe1986convictionwasvoidbecausethejudgment  ` didnotaffirmativelyrecitewhetherHickmanwasrepresentedbycounselorwaivedcounsel.The  L  petitionsoughttosetasidethe1986conviction so[that]itmaynotbeconsideredinacaseinU.S.  8  DistrictCourt.Findingthatthegroundsalleged,iftrue,renderedtheconvictionvoidable,notvoid, $  thetrialcourtdismissedthehabeascorpuspetition.Alternatively,thetrialcourtconcludedthat,if   treatedasapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,thepetitionwastimebarredbythestatuteof   limitations.     Hickmanappealed,andinasplitdecision,theCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthetrial p courtsjudgment.Emphasizingthatthetendaysuspendedsentenceonthe1986convictionhad \ expiredlongbeforethehabeascorpuspetitionwasfiled,themajorityconcludedthatHickmanwas H not imprisonedorrestrainedofhislibertyandthereforewasnotentitledtohabeascorpusrelief. 4 ThemajorityalsopointedoutthatHickmanspetitionfailedtocomplywiththestatutoryformand  p failedtoprovidestatutorilymandatedinformation.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.2921107(2000).  \ Finally,inafootnote,themajorityindicatedthatifthedefendantispresentlyinfederalcustody,as H heallegedinanothercaseattackinghis1986conviction,thenheisbarredfromobtaininghabeas 4 corpusreliefbyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection2921102,whichprovidesthat [p]ersons   committedordetainedbyvirtueofprocessissuedbyacourtoftheUnitedStates,orajudgethereof   ...arenotentitledtothebenefitsofthiswrit.    Wegrantedthedefendantsapplicationforpermissiontoappealandnowaffirmthejudgment  ofthelowercourtsdismissingthehabeascorpuspetition. l @ II.StandardofReview  0"    Thedeterminationofwhetherhabeascorpusreliefshouldbegrantedisaquestionoflaw. #l! McLaneyv.Bell,59S.W.3d90,92(Tenn.2001).Accordingly,ourreviewisdenovowithno $X" presumptionofcorrectnessaccordedtothecourtsbelow.Id. $D # @$ III.Analysis  '#&   InTennessee,twodistinctproceduralavenuesareavailabletocollaterallyattackafinal (#' judgmentinacriminalcasehabeascorpusandpostconvictionpetitions.Taylorv.State,995 )$(  S.W.2d78,83(Tenn.1999);Pottsv.State,833S.W.2d60,62(Tenn.1992).Therighttoseek |*%) '    habeascorpusreliefisguaranteedbyarticleI,section15oftheTennesseeConstitution. *#  1      ׀The   proceduresgoverninghabeascorpuspetitionsarecodifiedatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections  2921101through2921130.ThisCourthaspreviouslyacknowledgedthat theprocedural  provisionsofthehabeascorpusstatutesaremandatoryandmustbefollowedscrupulously.Archer t v.State,851S.W.2d157,165(Tenn.1993)(citingBatemanv.Smith,194S.W.2d336,337(1946)). ` ЀAlthoughthereisnohabeascorpusstatuteoflimitations,thegroundsuponwhichhabeascorpus L  reliefwillbegrantedarenarrow.Dixonv.Holland,70S.W.3d33,36(Tenn.2002);SeeStatev. 8  Ritchie,20S.W.3d624,630(Tenn.2000);Archer,851S.W.2dat164.Habeascorpusreliefis $ t properonlyifthepetitionestablishesthatthechallengedjudgmentisvoid,asopposedtomerely  ` voidable.Taylor,995S.W.2dat83;Potts,833S.W.2dat62.Ajudgmentisvoid onlywhen[_i]t_  L  appearsuponthefaceofthejudgmentortherecordoftheproceedingsuponwhichthejudgmentis  8  renderedthataconvictingcourtwaswithoutjurisdictionorauthoritytosentenceadefendant,orthat $  adefendantssentenceofimprisonmentorotherrestrainthasexpired.Ritchie,20S.W.3dat630   (quotingArcher,851S.W.2dat164(quotingStatev.Galloway,45Tenn.(5Cold.)326,33637   (1868)).Furthermore,asentence imposedindirectcontraventionofastatute...isvoidand   illegal.Stephensonv.Carlton,28S.W.3d910,911(Tenn.2000).Whenthehabeascorpuspetition   failstodemonstratethatthejudgmentisvoid,atrialcourtmayproperlydismissthepetitionwithout p ahearing.Tenn.CodeAnn.2921109(2000);Dixon,70S.W.3dat36. \   Apetitionforpostconvictionreliefistheproceduralavenueforattackingvoidable 4 judgments.Taylor,995S.W.2dat83;Statev.McClintock,732S.W.2d268,272(Tenn.1987).  p Recognizingthenarrowscopeofhabeascorpusrelief,in1967theTennesseeGeneralAssembly  \ enactedthePostConvictionProceduresAct.i *#  2      ׀Postconvictionpetitioners,unlikehabeascorpus H petitioners,maychallengeconvictionsorsentencesthatareeithervoidorvoidablebecauseofthe 4 abridgmentofconstitutionalrights.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030103(2003);Taylor,995S.W.2dat   83;Potts,833S.W.2dat62. Avoidableconvictionorsentenceisonewhichisfaciallyvalidand   requirestheintroductionofproofbeyondthefaceoftherecordorjudgmenttoestablishits  invalidity.Taylor,995S.W.2dat83(citingDykesv.Compton,978S.W.2d528,529(Tenn.1998);  Archer,851S.W.2dat16164).Aoneyearstatuteoflimitationsappliestopostconviction  petitions.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(2003).Havingbrieflyreviewedthesedistinctprocedural l avenues,wewilladdresstheissuesraisedinthisappeal. X    @  A.ProceduralRequirementsforPetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus  #l!   TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection2921107(a)providesthathabeascorpuspetitionsmust $X" besignedandverifiedbyaffidavit.Thisstatutefurtherrequiresthepetitiontostate: $D # 8  (1)Thatthepersoninwhosebehalfthewritissought,isillegallyrestrainedof  liberty,andthepersonbywhomandplacewhererestrained,mentioningthenameof  suchperson,ifknown,and,ifunknown,describingthepersonwithasmuch  particularityaspracticable;t   8  (2)Thecauseorpretenseofsuchrestraintaccordingtothebestinformationofthe L  applicant,andifitbebyvirtueofanylegalprocess,acopythereofshallbeannexed, 8  orasatisfactoryreasongivenforitsabsence;$ t   8  (3)Thatthelegalityoftherestrainthasnotalreadybeenadjudgeduponaprior  L  proceedingofthesamecharacter,tothebestoftheapplicant'sknowledgeandbelief;  8  and$    8  (4)Thatitisfirstapplicationforthewrit,or,ifapreviousapplicationhasbeenmade,   acopyofthepetitionandproceedingsthereonshallbeproduced,orsatisfactory   reasonsbegivenforthefailuresotodo.    Tenn.CodeAnn.2921107(b)(2000).Hickmanspetitionfailedtocomplywiththisstatute.The \ petition,preparedandfiledbycounselonHickmansbehalf,statesinitsentiretyasfollows: H 8   ` ComesthePetitioner,RogerL.Hickman,byandthroughcounsel,Douglas  p A.Trant,topetitionforawritofhabeascorpusconcerninghisconvictioninthe  \ KnoxCountySessionsCourtforKnoxCounty,Tennesseeincasenumber72333G H whereinhewasconvictedofsimplepossessionofmarijuana.Acertifiedcopyofthe 4 convictionisattachedandisvoidonitsfacebecausetheconvictiondoesnotstate   thathehadcounselnordidhewaivecounsel.Waiveroftheconstitutionalrightof   counselcannotbepresumedfromasilentrecord.Burgettv.Texas,389U.S.109,  88S.Ct.258,19L.Ed.2d319(1967)andBaldassarv.Illinois,446U.S.222,100  S.Ct.1585,64L.Ed.2d169(1980).   AstheCourtofCriminalAppealsnoted,_Hickman_spetitionwasnotverifiedbyaffidavit,failedto X  nametherestrainingauthorityandtheplaceofrestraint,failedtostatewhetherthelegalityofthe D! restrainthadbeenpreviouslyadjudicated,andfailedtostatewhetherpreviousapplicationsforthe 0"  writhadbeenmade.However,theStatedidnotmovetodismissthepetitionforfailuretocomply #l! withCodesection107,nordidthetrialcourtdismissthepetitionforproceduralnoncompliance. $X"   Aspreviouslyexplained,theproceduralrequirementsofthehabeascorpusstatutes are %0!$ mandatoryandmustbefollowedscrupulously.Archer,851S.W.2dat165;Bateman,194S.W.2d &"%  at337.Ahabeascorpuscourtmayproperlychoosetodismissapetitionforfailingtocomplywith '#& thestatutoryproceduralrequirements;however,dismissalisnotrequired._[ *#  3      _ԀThehabeascorpuscourt   mayinsteadchoosetoaffordthepetitioneranopportunitytocomplywiththeprocedural  requirements,orthehabeascorpuscourtmaychoosetoadjudicatethepetitiononitsmerits.See  Tenn.CodeAnn.2921109(2000)( If,fromtheshowingofthepetitioner,theplaintiffwouldnot t beentitledtoanyrelief,thewritmayberefused,thereasonsforsuchrefusalbeingbrieflyendorsed ` uponthepetition,orappendedthereto.)(emphasisadded). L    Inthiscase,theStatedidnotmovetodismissHickmanspetitionforprocedural $ t noncomplianceeventhoughitwaspreparedandfiledbycounsel.Likewise,thetrialcourtchoseto  ` adjudicatethepetitiononitsmeritsandcertainlyactedwithinitsdiscretionindoingso.Thus,we  L  declinetobaseourdecisiontodismissthepetitionuponthepetitionersfailuretocomplywiththe  8  statutoryprocedureandwillinsteadconsiderthepetitiononitsmerits $  XXXX@   B.RestraintofLiberty      Hickmanarguesthatthelowercourtserredinconcludingthatheisnotentitledtohabeas   corpusreliefbecauseheisneither imprisonednor restrainedoflibertybyhis1986conviction. p Hickmanassertsthattheuseofhis1986convictiontoenhancehisfederalsentencerestrainshis \ liberty.Wedisagree. H   TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection2921101(2003),providesthat [a]nypersonimprisoned  p orrestrainedofliberty,underanypretensewhatsoever,...mayprosecuteawritofhabeascorpus,  \ toinquireintothecauseofsuchimprisonmentandrestraint(emphasisadded.)Thestatutedoes H notdefinetheterms imprisonedand restrainedofliberty.Whenconstruingstatutes,thisCourt 4 ascertainsandeffectuateslegislativeintent.Dixon,70S.W.3dat37.Legislativeintentisderived   fromtheplainandordinarymeaningofthestatutorylanguage.Id.Whenthemeaningofthe   languageisunclear,theentirestatutoryschememustbeexaminedtodeterminelegislativeintentand  purpose.Id.Theordinarymeaningoftheterm imprisonedisclear.To imprisonis toconfine  (aperson)inprison.BlacksLawDictionary760(7thed.1999).Plainly,then, imprisonedin  thisstatutereferstoactualphysicalconfinementordetention. l   Unlike imprisonment,themeaningof restrainedoflibertyisnotlimitedtophysical D! confinementordetention.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasstated:#XXXX@#Ԁ History,usage,and 0"  precedentcanleavenodoubtthat,besidesphysicalimprisonment,thereareotherrestraintsona  [persons]liberty,restraintsnotsharedbythepublicgenerally,whichhavebeenthoughtsufficient  intheEnglishspeakingworldtosupporttheissuanceofhabeascorpus.Jonesv.Cunningham,371  U.S.236,240(1963).ThisCourthasalsorecognizedthatapersonmaybe restrainedofliberty t andentitledtoseekhabeascorpusreliefevenwhennotphysicallyconfined.StateexrelDillehay ` v.White,398S.W.2d737(Tenn.1966).Dillehaychallengedthelegalityofherrestraintundera L  judgmentcommittinghertotheMauryCountyjailtoworkoffthefineandcostsimposedinher 8  criminalcase.Id.at738.ThetrialjudgedismissedthepetitionbutreleasedDillehayonherown $ t recognizancependingappeal;however,thebondprohibitedDillehayfromleavingMauryCounty.  ` Id.Dillehayappealed,andtheStatearguedthat,becauseDillehaywasnolongerphysicallyconfined  L  injail,herappealwasmoot.Id.ThisCourtdisagreed,stating:  8  8  Althoughsheisnotbeingheldinjail,sheis,nevertheless,restrictedinherlibertyto   MauryCountypendingthisappealandissubjecttoimmediateconfinementshould   herappealbedismissed.Bygraceofthetrialjudgesheisnowatliberty,butupon   herviolationofherconfinementtoMauryCountyshecouldbeplacedinjailagain.   Habeascorpus,ifotherwiseproper,canreachthisconstructiveconfinement.p   Id.(citingJonesv.Cunningham,371U.S.236(1963)).Thus,Dillehaystandsfortheproposition H that,whenthechallengedjudgmentitselfimposesarestraintuponthepetitionersfreedomofaction 4 ormovement,thepetitionerisentitledtoseekhabeascorpusrelief,eventhoughthepetitionerisnot  p physicallyconfinedordetained.SeealsoJones,371U.S.at243( Whilepetitionersparolereleases  \ himfromimmediatephysicalimprisonment,itimposesconditionswhichsignificantlyconfineand H restrainhisfreedom....);Walesv.Whitney,114U.S.564,572(1885)( Theremustbe[either] 4 actualconfinementorthepresentmeansofenforcingit.);39Am.Jur.2dHabeasCorpus,17   (1999)( Anyrestraintthatprecludesfreedomofaction...issufficient,notwithstandinglackof   confinementinajailorprison,as,forexample,arestraintthatconsistsinforbiddingamantoleave  thecityandkeepinghimunderthesurveillanceofanofficer,ortherestraintthatexistsbyvirtueof  theconditionsofparoleorprobation.)    However,whentherestraintonapetitionerslibertyismerelyacollateralconsequenceof X  thechallengedjudgment,habeascorpusisnotanappropriateavenueforseekingrelief.InMaleng D! v.Cook,490U.S.488(1989),theUnitedStatesSupremeexplainedthisdistinction. 0"  8  Thequestionpresentedbythiscaseiswhetherahabeaspetitionerremains in $X" custodyunderaconvictionafterthesentenceimposedforithasfullyexpired, $D # merelybecauseofthepossibilitythatthepriorconvictionwillbeusedtoenhancethe %0!$ sentencesimposedforanysubsequentcrimesofwhichheisconvicted.Weholdthat &"% hedoesnot.Whilewehaveveryliberallyconstruedthe incustodyrequirementfor '#& purposesoffederalhabeas,wehaveneverextendedittothesituationwhereahabeas (#' petitionersuffersnopresentrestraintfromaconviction.Sincealmostallstateshave )$( habitualoffenderstatutes,...acontraryrulingwouldmeanthatapetitionerwhose |*%) sentencehascompletelyexpiredcouldnonethelesschallengetheconvictionfor h+&* whichitwasimposedatanytimeonfederalhabeas.Thiswouldreadthe in  custodyrequirementoutofthestatute....   Id.at492.Eventhoughthelanguageofthefederalhabeascorpusstatutedifferssomewhatfromthe t languageoftheTennesseestatute,weagreewith_Maleng_sanalysisonthisissue.Indeed,this ` analysisisconsistentwiththehistoryandusageofthewritofhabeascorpus,priordecisionsofthis L  court,andtheoverallstatutoryschemegoverningthewritofhabeascorpusinTennessee. 8  Accordingly,weholdthatapersonisnot restrainedoflibertyforpurposesofthehabeascorpus $ t statuteunlessthechallengedjudgmentitselfimposesarestraintuponthepetitionersfreedomof  ` actionormovement.Useofthechallengedjudgmenttoenhancethesentenceimposedonaseparate  L  convictionisnotarestraintoflibertysufficienttopermitahabeascorpuschallengetotheoriginal  8  convictionlongafterthesentenceontheoriginalconvictionhasexpired._ *#  4      _ $    Hickmanhasnotallegedthathepresentlyisservingthetendaysuspendedsentenceimposed   forhis1986convictionintheKnoxCountyGeneralSessionsCourt.Thus,Hickmanclearlyisnot    imprisonedunderthechallengedjudgment.Furthermore,Hickmanisnot restrainedofliberty   asadirectconsequenceofthe1986judgment.Indeed,thetendaysentencehaslongagoexpired, p andtheGeneralSessionsjudgmentdoesnotimposeanyfurtherrestraintuponhisphysical \ movementoraction.Althoughthis1986convictionmayhavebeenusedtoenhanceafederal H sentenceHickmanisserving,enhancementismerelyacollateralconsequenceofthe1986judgment.Y8  *#  5      ׀ 4 Thus,Hickmanisnot restrainedoflibertyforpurposesofthehabeascorpusstatute.Furthermore,  p asexplainedbelow,thetrialcourtcorrectlyheldthat_Hickman_s1986judgmentisnotvoidonits  \ face H @! C.VoidorVoidable      _Hickman_spetitionallegesthatthe1986judgmentisvoidbecauseitdoesnotaffirmatively  indicatethathewasrepresentedbycounselorthathewaivedhisrighttocounselwhenhepleaded  guiltytomisdemeanorpossessionofmarijuana.TheStaterespondsthatthejudgmentisnotfacially  invalidbecausethejudgmentdoesnotshowthattheconvictingcourtwaswithoutjurisdictionor  authoritytoacceptthepleaandtosentencethedefendant.WeagreewiththeState.    Aspreviouslyindicated, thegroundsuponwhichhabeascorpusreliefwillbegrantedare ` narrow.Dixon,70S.W.3dat36.Habeascorpusisavehicleforattackingajudgmentthatisvoid L  onitsface.Ritchie,20S.W.3dat630.XXXX [A]voidjudgmentisoneinwhichthejudgmentisfacially 8  invalidbecausethecourtlackedjurisdictionorauthoritytorenderthejudgmentorbecausethe $ t defendantssentencehasexpired.Id.(quotingTaylor,995S.W.2dat83).Incontrast,avoidable  ` judgment isfaciallyvalidandrequirestheintroductionofproofbeyondthefaceoftherecordor  L  judgmenttoestablishitsinvalidity.Id.at633.Thus, [i]nallcaseswhereapetitionermust  8  introduceproofbeyondtherecordtoestablishtheinvalidityofhisconviction,thenthatconviction $  bydefinitionismerelyvoidable,andaTennesseecourtcannotissuethewritofhabeascorpusunder   suchcircumstances.Ritchie,20S.W.3dat633.#XXXXHh#Ԁ     Thejudgmentinthiscaseisnotfaciallyinvalidbecausethejudgmentdoesnotshowthatthe   convictingcourtwaswithoutjurisdictionorauthoritytoacceptthepleaandtosentenceHickman. p ThecopyofthejudgmentattachedtoHickmanspetitiondemonstratesthattheGeneralSessions \ Courthadbothsubjectmatterandpersonaljurisdiction.ThewarrantchargedHickmanwith H possessionofmarijuanaonMay5,1986,amisdemeanoroffensec *#  6      ׀overwhichtheGeneralSessions 4 Courthadsubjectmatterjurisdiction.dT *#  7      ׀BecausetheGeneralSessionsCourtisacourtoflimited  p jurisdiction,Z *#  8      ׀jurisdictionalfactsmustaffirmativelyappearupontherecord.SeeRitchie,20S.W.3d  \ at631n.14;McClintock,732S.W.2dat27071.Here,thosefactsappear:thewarrantreflectsthat H Hickmanenteredawrittenguiltyplea,requestedatrialonthemeritsinGeneralSessionsCourt,and 4 expresslywaivedhisrighttoindictment,presentment,grandjuryinvestigation,andjurytrial.   Becausethejudgmentplainlystatestheessentialfactsestablishingthecourtsjurisdiction,the   judgmentisentitledtoapresumptionofregularity.Id.    Thejudgmentssilenceastowhetherthepetitionerwasrepresentedbycounselorwaived  therighttocounseldoesnotdefeatthepresumptionofregularityandrenderthejudgmentvoid.hl *#  9      ׀ l PriordecisionsofthisCourtclearlyindicatethatthepresumptionofregularityappliesunlessadefect X  appearsonthefaceofthejudgment.Forexample,inMcClintock,thisCourtnotedthat,aconviction D! shouldbeconsideredvoidonitsfacewhen therecordaffirmativelyreveal[s]thatthedefendanthad 0"  neitherbeenrepresentedbycounselnorwaivedhisrighttocounsel....723S.W.2dat273(citing #l! Baldasarv.Illinois,446U.S.222(1980))(emphasisadded).WepointedoutthatthePost $X" ConvictionProceduresActistheproperavenueforchallengingfaciallyvalidjudgments.Id.at274.  Similarly,inRitchie,thisCourtdeniedhabeascorpusreliefandheldthataconvictionisvoidonits  faceonlywhenthefaceofthejudgmentortherecordoftheproceedings clearlyandindisputably  reflectsthatthecourtofconvictionlackedterritorialjurisdiction.20S.W.3dat633.Thus,this t Courtspriordecisionsstandforthepropositionthatajudgmentisentitledtoapresumptionof ` regularityandisnotvoidunlessadefectappearsonthefaceofthejudgment.Thesepriordecisions L  donotsupportHickmansargumentthatajudgmentisfaciallyvoidunlessitaffirmativelyrecites 8  thatthedefendantwasrepresentedbycounselorwaivedtherighttocounsel. $ t   Furthermore,wehaveconsideredthecasesHickmanreliesuponandfindthemreadily  L  distinguishable.Forexample,inBaldasarv.Illinois,446U.S.222(1980),therecordaffirmatively  8  revealedthatthedefendanthadneitherbeenrepresentedbycounselnorwaivedtherighttocounsel. $  Id.at223;McClintock,732S.W.2dat273(notingthisdistinction).Similarly,inBurgettv.Texas,   389U.S.109(1967),theevidenceofthepriorTennesseeconvictionincludedtwo records,one   recitingthattheaccusedappeared withoutCounsel,andtheothermakingnoreferenceto   counsel.Id.at112.Giventhesetworecords,oneaffirmativelyrecitingthatthedefendantdidnot   havecounselandtheothersilentastowhetherthedefendanthadcounselorwaivedcounsel,the p SupremeCourtconcludedthatthe recordsoftheTennesseeconvictionontheirfaceraisea \ presumptionthatpetitionerwasdeniedhisrighttocounselintheTennesseeproceeding,and H thereforethathisconvictionwasvoid.Id.at114(emphasisadded).Centrallyimportanttothe 4 Burgettholding,then,wastheaffirmativestatementthatthedefendanthadappeared without  p Counsel.Inlightofthisfacialdefect,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsimplyrefusedtopresume  \ avalidwaiveroftherighttocounselfromtheotherTennesseerecord,whichwassilentasto H counsel. 4   ThelimitedscopeoftheBurgettholdingwasconfirmedbytheSupremeCourtsdecisionin   Parkev.Raley,506U.S.20(1992).InParkeastateprisonersoughttovacatehisKentucky  sentence,arguingthatthepriorconvictionsusedtoenhancehissentencewerenotknowinglyand  voluntarilyenteredbecausehehadnotbeenadvisedofhisrightsunderBoykinv.Alabama,395  U.S.238(1969).CertifiedcopiesofthepriorconvictionsdidnotaffirmativelyshowthatRaleyhad l beenadvisedofhisBoykinrights,andtranscriptsofthepleaproceedingswerenotavailable.In X  rejectingRaleysclaim,theCourtfirstdistinguishedBoykin,whichstandsforthepropositionthat D! thegovernmentmustordinarilycreatearecordaffirmativelyshowingthataguiltypleawasknowing 0"  andvoluntary,explaining: #l! 8  Boykininvolveddirectreviewofaconvictionallegedlybaseduponanuninformed $D # guiltyplea.Respondent,however,neverappealedhisearlierconvictions.They %0!$ becamefinalyearsago,andhenowseekstorevisitthequestionoftheirvalidityin &"% aseparaterecidivismproceeding.ToimportBoykin'spresumptionofinvalidityinto '#& thisverydifferentcontextwould,inourview,improperlyignoreanother (#' presumptiondeeplyrootedinourjurisprudence:the"presumptionofregularity"that )$( attachestofinaljudgments,evenwhenthequestioniswaiverofconstitutionalrights. |*%) h+&*   Parke,506U.S.at29(internalcitationsomitted).TheCourtsquarelyrejectedRaleysclaimthat  Burgettsupported thepropositionthateverypreviousconvictionusedtoenhancepunishmentis  presumptivelyvoidifwaiverof[any]claimedconstitutionalrightdoesnotappearfromtheface  oftherecord.Parke,506U.S.at31.TheCourtrefusedto readthedecisionsobroadlyand t limitedBurgetttoitsproperhistoricalandproceduralcontext,stating: ` 8  [a]tthetimethepriorconvictionatissueinBurgettwasentered,statecriminal 8  defendantsfederalconstitutionalrighttocounselhadnotyetbeenrecognized,and $ t soitwasreasonabletopresumethatthedefendanthadnotwaivedarighthedidnot  ` possess....[T]hesamecannotbesaidaboutarecordthat,byvirtueofits  L  unavailabilityoncollateralreview,failstoshowcompliancewiththewell  8  establishedBoykinrequirements.$    Id.at31.TheCourtconcluded:   8  Oncollateralreview,wethinkitdefieslogictopresumefromthemereunavailability   ofatranscript...thatthedefendantwasnotadvisedofhisrights.Inthissituation, p Boykindoesnotprohibitastatecourtfrompresuming,atleastinitially,thatafinal \ judgmentofconvictionofferedforpurposesofsentencingenhancementwasvalidly H obtained.4   Id.at30.Thus,neitherBaldasarnorBurgettsupportHickmansclaimthatajudgmentisvoidunless  \ itaffirmativelyrecitesthatthedefendanthadcounselorwaivedcounsel.TheUnitedStatesSupreme H CourtsdecisioninParkesupportstheoppositeconclusion.SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Jones,332 4 F.3d688(3rdCir.2003);UnitedStatesv.Gray,177F.3d86(1stCir.1999);Nicelyv.   Commonwealth,490S.E.2d281(Va.Ct.App.1997).Thesedecisionsaffirmthepresumptionof   regularitythathaslongbeenappliedinhabeascorpusproceedingsinTennessee.Furthermore,our  researchhasrevealednoTennesseehabeascorpuscaseholdingthatajudgmentisvoidunlessitfails  toaffirmativelyrecitethatthedefendanthadcounselorwaivedtherighttocounsel.Wealsodecline  toadoptsucharuleandinsteadreaffirmthewellsettledprinciplethatajudgmentisvoidonlyifthe l faceofthejudgmentortherecordoftheproceedingsclearlyreflectsthatthecourtlackedjurisdiction X  torenderthejudgmentorthatthesentencehasexpired.Ritchie,20S.W.3dat633. D!   Returningtotherecordinthiscase,weconcludethatthejudgmentisnotvoidonitsfaceand #l! isinsteadentitledtothepresumptionofregularity.Thejudgmentcontainsablanklinewhere $X" defensecounselisordinarilylisted,andthepreprinted WaiverofAttorneywasnotsignedbythe $D # defendant.Thisjudgmentdoesnotclearlyreflectthatthedefendantwasdeniedtherighttocounsel. %0!$ Thejudgmentismerelysilent.Additionalinformationoutsidethejudgmentwouldbeneededto &"% establishthatHickmaninfactwasnotrepresentedbycounsel.Aswepreviouslystated,where '#& additionalproofisneeded,thejudgmentisatmostvoidable,ratherthanvoid,andapostconviction (#' petitionisthepropermethodforattackingavoidablejudgment.Taylor,995S.W.2dat83; )$( McClintock,732S.W.2dat272.Thus,Hickmanisnotentitledtohabeascorpusrelief. |*%) Furthermore,thetrialcourtcorrectlyconcludedthat,ifviewedasapostconvictionpetition, h+&* Hickmanspetitionistimebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030102  (1990)(repealed1995);Abstonv.State,749S.W.2d487(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).     @ll# IV.Conclusion  `   Forthesereasons,Hickmanisnotentitledtoreliefonhishabeascorpusclaim.Accordingly, L  thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtothe 8  petitioner,RogerL.Hickman,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. $ t    `     h      p      x     `     h   ____________________________________________Ԁ      `     h   FRANKF.DROWOTAIII,      `     h   CHIEFJUSTICE   @*