Misty Laverne Roberts v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: April 30, 1999
• Docket: 03C01-9803-CC-00124
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE FILED April 30, 1999 JANUARY 1999 SESSION Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

MISTY LAVERNE ROBERTS, ) ) Appellant, ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9803-CC-00124 ) vs. ) Hawkins County ) DONAL CAMPBELL, Commissioner, ) Hon. James E. Beckner, Judge and ) FAYE CLAUDE, Sentence Manager, ) (Sentence Reduction Credits) ) Appellees. ) )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

MISTY LAVERNE ROBERTS JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney General & Reporter Special Needs Facility - 7A 7575 Cockrill Bend Ind. Rd. ELLEN H. POLLACK Nashville, TN 37209-1057 A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n er a l 425 Fifth Ave. N., 2d Floor Nashville, TN 37243-0493

C. BERKELEY BELL, JR. District Attorney General

DOUG GODBEE Assistant District Attorney General 100 E. Main St., Ste. 201 Rogersville, TN 37857

OPINION FILED:________________

AFFIRMED

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE OPINION

The petitioner, Misty Laverne Roberts, appeals from the trial court's

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of her "Motion for Contempt

Proceedings."1 The defendant is presently serving an effective 33-year sentence

in the Department of Correction for her October 3, 1994 convictions of four counts

of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated kidnapping. In her motion and on

appeal, she claims that the named respondents have ignored the trial court's

judgment as regards sentencing by incorrectly calculating her sentence and failing

to correct the error once notified of it. She prays that the respondents be found in

contempt pursuant to Code section 16-1-103 and Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b)

and that a writ of attachment issue against the respondents under Code section 29-

6-101. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law,

we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the motion.

Roberts' complaint is with the Department's application of credits to

her sentence. Generally, a trial court's authority regarding sentencing credits ends

once the inmate enters the Department. Matthew P. Finlaw v. Anderson County

Jail, No. 03C01-9212-CR-00048, slip op. at 4 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Aug. 13,

1993). Tennessee law provides that an inmate who is aggrieved of the

Department's calculation of her sentence should seek her remedy under the

Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-5-101 to -325

(1998); see, e.g., Lonnie Williams v. Bruce McDonald, No. 02C01-9603-CR-00109,

slip op. at 2-3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Mar. 11, 1997); David A. Darnell v. Ricky

Bell, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00275, slip op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, July 5,

1 This filing is a novel one. It is not properly a petition for the writ of habeas corpus because there is no allegation that the petitioner's convictions are void or her sentence has expired. See Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993). Moreover, it raises no claim that the conviction or sentence is void or voidable based upon constitutional shortcoming; as such, it is not a petition for post-conviction relief. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997).

2 1996); Brigham v. Lack, 755 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). If the

inmate seeks judicial review once a final agency determination has been made, she

must initiate review in the Davidson County Chancery Court, rather than in the

circuit court in which she was convicted. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-225(a) (1998);

Brigham, 744 S.W.2d at 471. Review of the chancery court's decision lies with the

court of appeals, not this court. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-323 (1998).

Subject matter jurisdiction over challenges of the sort made by the

petitioner is conferred on entities other than the Hawkins County Circuit Court and

the court of criminal appeals. Although this court and the circuit court do possess

contempt powers, we know of no authority which would permit us to use those

powers in an attempt to obtain jurisdiction where none exists. 2

Accordingly, the trial court's dismissal of Roberts' motion is affirmed.

________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

CONCUR:

2 A 1998 enactment provided that “rule” under the UAPA does not include “[s]tatements concerning inmates of a correctional or detention facility.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102(10)(G). Under Code section 4-5-223, an individual may petition an agency for a declaratory order regarding “the validity or applicability of a statute, rule or order within the primary jurisdiction of the agency.” Notwithstanding the new subsection (10)(G), the “TOMIS Offender Sentence Letter” the petitioner received most closely resembles an “order.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102(7) (order determines legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities or other legal interests of an individual).

3 _______________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE

_______________________________ JOHN K. BYERS, SENIOR JUDGE