State ex rel. Wade v. Norvell
Tenn. Crim. App.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2020Carlos Rice v. Jonathan Lebo, Warden Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2013Frederick Parks v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2010Bruce Huffines v. Howard Carlton, Warden Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2010George Hardin v. Jim Morrow, Warden Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2010Robert M. Winters v. Jim Morrow, Warden Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2010State v. Syvessle Redmond Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2010Jerry Saulmon v. State & Jack Morgan,Warden Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2010Milburn L. Edwards v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2010Jose Holmes v. Howard Carlton, Warden Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2010Milton L. Byrd v. State of Tennessee Tenn. Crim. App.
Cites 2 cases
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
STATE OF TENNESSEE ex rel. AARON WADE, Petitioner, v. J. W. NORVELL, Warden, Respondent.
Attorneys
- Hugh W. Stanton, Jr., Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
- George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen. of Tennessee, Robert H. Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Eugene C. Gaerig, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Memphis, for defendant in error.
The petitioner appeals from the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing. After his answer, the respondent moved to dismiss the petition. The Court sustained the motion on the ground that the sole ground alleged for relief was denial of good time while on parole.
On November 20, 1967, the petitioner entered a plea of guilty to larceny from the person and was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary with credit for 360 days in jail awaiting trial. He says that in March, 1968, he appeared before the pardon and parole board and was informed that he had lost all of his good time on a previous 1962 sentence; that the earlier sentence had expired and the board had no authority to take it. The petitioner asks the Court to determine the beginning and final date of his November 20, 1967, sentence.
This petition was filed in the trial court April 29, 1968. It does not contend that the conviction was void or that it had expired. It merely seeks an advisory opinion on the beginning and ending of his sentence. Declaratory relief is not the function of habeas corpus. From his petition, it appears that the time during which he may be legally detained has not expired. When the petition shows he is lawfully detained and there is nothing in it to indicate that his conviction was void or expired, the trial court may properly dismiss the petition without a hearing. See T.C.A. Sec. 23-1831; State ex rel. Byrd v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 476, 381 S.W.2d 280. It is not necessary to remand this case for the respondent’s authority under Ussery v. Avery, Tenn., 432 S.W.2d 656, because the petition does not claim that the sentence has expired.
The judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition is affirmed.