IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
MAY SESSION, 1997 January 16, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
WILLIE LEE HENDERSON, ) Appellate Court Clerk
C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9607-CR-00304
)
Appe llant, )
)
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. ANN LACY JOHNS
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Writ of Ha beas C orpus R elief)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
WILLIE LEE HENDERSON Pro Se JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Special Needs Facility/Unit 10 Attorney General and Reporter
7575 Cockrill Bend Industrial Rd.
Nashville, TN 37209-1057 MICH AEL J . FAHE Y, II
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243
ORDER FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
ORDER
On July 5, 1995, Appellant, Willie Lee Henderson, filed a petitio n for a w rit
of habea s corpu s in the D avidson Coun ty Crimina l Court. In Ja nuary of 1 996,
the petition was d ismiss ed by th at cou rt withou t a hea ring. A ppella nt app eals
from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition.
After a review of the re cord, w e affirm pursu ant to C riminal Court of
Appeals Rule 20.
In March of 1948, Appellant was sentenced to ninety -nine years in the
Tennessee Department of Correc tions follow ing a con viction for m urder. In
October of 1974, his sen tence was c omm uted by Go vernor W infield Dunn.
Appellant was released on November 13, 1974 and placed on five years of
supervision. In 1978, Appellant was involve d in an incide nt whic h resu lted in h is
being convicted of kidnaping with intent to rob, robbery and criminal sexual
conduct in the first degree. As a result of these convictions, on September 17,
1979, Governor Lamar Alexander revoked Appellant’s commutation.
Appellant contends that the revocation of his commutation occurred after
the expiration of his original sentence would have occurred had he remained
imprisoned and good and honor time were taken into account. He argues that
the trial court erred in refusing to hold an eviden tiary he aring o n this iss ue an d in
dismissing his petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
-2-
It is well settled that habeas c orpus relief is available on ly when it appea rs
on the face of the judg ment that a c onviction is void or whe n the petitioner's term
of imprison ment h as expire d. Tenn . Code Ann. § 29-21-101; State v. Archer,
851 S.W .2d 15 7, 164 (Ten n. 199 3). In oth er wor ds, “the only relief that can be
given a prisone r in a state habea s corpus pro ceeding is relea se.” State v.
Warren, 740 S.W.2d 427, 428 (T enn. C rim. App . 1986). In the matter sub judice,
Appellant does not contest the validity of the convictions for robbery, kidnaping
and crimin al sexu al con duct. H abea s corp us relie f does not lie when the
petitioner is rightfully imprisoned un der a valid judgm ent and imme diate release
is not an option.
According ly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Court of
Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
-3-