IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FILED APRIL SESSION, 1997 June 6, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson KENNETH KERSEY, ) Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9604-CR-00128 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. THOMAS H. SHRIVER STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: PAU LA OG LE BL AIR CHARLES W. BURSON Se cond A venue, N orth Attorney General and Reporter Suite 406 Nashville, TN 37201 LISA A. NAYLOR Assistant Attorney General James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493 VICTOR S. JOHNSON District Attorney General NICHOLAS D. BAILEY Assistant District Attorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 Se cond A venue, N orth Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE OPINION This is an appeal pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appe llate Procedure. The Defendant filed a petition seeking habeas corpus relief and alleged generally that his sentence was void and had expire d. Counsel was appointed, and an amended petition was filed. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief. It is from this order that the Defendant appea ls. We affirm the ju dgme nt of the trial co urt.

On July 14, 1981, the Defenda nt was convicte d on a jury verdict of burglary, aggravated sexual battery and aggravated rape. He received an effective senten ce of twenty years in the D epartm ent of C orrect ion. Sh ortly thereafter, he was transported to Indiana where he was subsequently convicted of several offenses and received a sentence of twenty-five years.1 After serving several years in Indiana, the Defendant was apparently paroled or otherwise released from prison in Indiana and was returned to Tennessee where he entered into the custody of the Department of Correction on May 26, 1991. He has been denied parole several times and remains incarcerated in the Depa rtment o f Correc tion.

The Defe ndan t’s prima ry argu men t at the e videntia ry hea ring wa s that h is Tennessee sentence was to be served concurrently with his Indiana sentence and therefore, beca use he ha s been disch arged from his Indiana sentence, he shou ld also be discharged from his Tennessee sentence. On appeal, the

Apparently, the Indiana sentence was subsequently modified to twenty years.

-2- Defendant argues that his sentence is void because Tennessee violated the Interstate Compact on Detainers and lost jurisdiction over the Defendant when he was transported to Indiana. He also argues that beca use h e did n ot actu ally start serving his Tennessee sentence until 1991, he was denied jail credits and time for good behavior in violation of due process of law.

Much of the Defendant’s argument centers around his contention that the Tennessee authorities are not giving him credit on his sentence for the time he served in Indiana. From this record, we cannot determine for certain whether the Defenda nt’s Tennes see senten ces were to ru n concurren tly with or consecutively to the Indiana sentences. It appears from the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearin g that th e Def enda nt was either e ligible fo r parole at the time he returned to Tennessee in 1991 or that h e bec ame eligible for paro le sho rtly thereafter. This fa ct sug gests that the Defe ndan t has re ceived credit o n his Tennessee senten ces for the time he s erved in In diana. In any event, time credits and sentence reduction credits are generally inappropriate considerations in a habeas corpus proc eeding and must be a ddressed through the U niform Administrative Procedures Act. Tenn . Code Ann. § 4 -5-101 to - 324; Carroll v. Raney, 868 S.W .2d 721, 723 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1993 ). The sole re lief availa ble under Ten ness ee’s h abea s corp us sta tute is discharg e from c ustody. Taylor v. Morgan, 909 S.W .2d 17, 20 (T enn. Crim. A pp. 1995).

Habeas corpu s relief is availab le und er Te nnes see la w only when a convicting court is without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant or when that defendant’s term of imprisonment or restraint has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157 , 164 (T enn. 19 93). Th ere is noth ing in this record that -3- demonstrates that the convicting co urt was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence the Defe ndant to serve tw enty ye ars in confinement for the convictions which he received on July 1 4, 198 1. The re is furth er noth ing co ntaine d in this record which demonstrates that the Defendant’s term of imprisonment or restraint has expired. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by denying the De fendan t habea s corpu s relief.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

___________________________________ J. CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-4-