Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JANUARY 1999 SESSION

FILED
May 4, 1999
Appellate C ourt Clerk

CHARLES BRYANT Appellant, vs. STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appellee.

* * * * *

C.C.A. No. 03C01-9803-CR-00115 Cecil Crowson, Jr. MONROE COUNTY

Hon. James C. W itt, Sr., Judge (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus)

For Appellant: Charles Bryant MCRCF-BMCX P.O. Box 2000 Wartburg, TN 37887

For Appellee: John Knox Walkup Attorney General and Reporter 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Ellen H. Pollack Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE

OPINION The petitioner, Charles Bryant, appeals the Monroe County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on February 13, 1998. The petitioner alleged in his petition that he should have been sentenced pursuant to the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1982, and that his sentences are illegal and void. In contrast, in this appeal as of right, the petitioner asserts for the first time that he is entitled to additional sentencing credits. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On May 14, 1981, the petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Monroe County Criminal Court of armed robbery and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. A jury imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for the armed robbery conviction and a sentence of two to five years for the illegal weapon conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner's convictions, but set aside his sentences and remanded the petitioner's case for a new sentencing hearing. State v. Bryant, 654 S.W.2d 389 (Tenn. 1983).

A second jury imposed a sentence of forty-five years imprisonment for the armed robbery conviction and a sentence of three to five years for the illegal weapon conviction. The petitioner appealed his sentences to this court, claiming that the sentences are excessive. This court affirmed the jury's sentencing determinations. State v. Bryant, No. 97, 1986 WL 11493 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, October 17, 1986).

On November 10, 1997, the petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his sentences are illegal and void. In denying the petition without appointing counsel or conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial

2

court concluded that the petition should be treated as a petition for post-conviction relief, and that the applicable statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the trial court concluded that the petitioner was properly sentenced pursuant to the "law applicable at the time of the commission of the crime."

Initially, the procedural provisions of the habeas corpus statute are mandatory and must be scrupulously followed. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 165 (Tenn. 1993). Tenn. Code Ann.

Download bryant.pdf

Tennessee Law