IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
MARCH SESSION , 1999 May 18, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
JAMES G. WINGARD, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9809-CC-00293
)
Appe llant, )
) LAKE COUNTY
V. )
)
) HON. R. LEE MOORE, JR., JUDGE
FRE D RAN EY, W ARDE N, )
)
Appellee. ) (HABEAS CORPUS)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JAME S. G. W INGAR D, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP
N.W.C.C. #68091 Attorney General & Reporter
Route 1, Box 660
Tiptonville, TN 38079 CLINTON J. MORGAN
Assistant Attorney General
2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243
C. PHILLIP BIVENS
District Attorney General
P.O. Draw er E
Dyersburg, TN 38024
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
ORDER
In this case, the Petitioner, James G. Wingard, has appealed as of right
from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. From the
record, it appears that Petition er is curren tly serving a s entenc e resulting from h is
conviction for first degree murder in 1970. He has additional convictions, at least
one of which is consecutive to the sentence for first deg ree murd er.
It appears that the basis of his complaint is that the Department of
Correction erroneous ly increased his re lease eligibility date for parole on the first
degree murder convic tion by tw enty (2 0%) p ercen t. Hab eas c orpus relief is a vailable
only when it appe ars upon the face of the judgm ent or the record that the convicting
court was without jurisdiction or when a defendant’s sentence has expired. Archer
v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157 , 164 (T enn. 19 93).
Attached to the petition for writ of habeas corpus are documents which
reflect that Petitioner has sought administrative relief within the Department of
Correction, which has been den ied. There is nothing in the record which indicates
that the convicting court was without jurisdiction or that the Defendant’s sentence
has expired. Therefore, the trial court properly dismisse d the petition for writ of
habeas corpus.
-2-
The judgment rendered by the trial court in dismissing the petition for
writ of habeas corpus was in a proceeding before the trial court without a jury, and
was no t a determ ination of g uilt. The e vidence does n ot prepo nderate against the
finding of the trial judge, and no error of law requiring a revers al of the judgm ent is
apparent on the record. It is accordingly ordered that the judgment of the trial court
is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of
Tennessee.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
GARY R. WA DE, Presiding Judge
___________________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge
-3-