Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(b)(3) (2006).Compare Anderson v. State, No. M2004-02116-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 739885, at *1 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar.23, 2006) (No Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed) (directing the habeas court to transfer the petition to convicting court for docketing as post-conviction matter) with State v. Darden, No. W2001-01833-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1482798, at *2 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb.12, 2002) (No Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed) (holding that the habeas court did not have authority to transfer case to proper post-conviction court). As a preliminary matter, the State argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in addressing the transfer issue because it was not raised in the trial court.
On February 5, 2001, the Petitioner filed a pro se "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or in the Alternative For Post-Conviction Relief" in Lake County Circuit Court. The court denied the habeas corpus petition and determined that it did not have jurisdiction to address the post-conviction issues arising from the Petitioner's Robertson County convictions. State v. Charles Damien Darden, No. W2001-01833-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 12, 2002). This court agreed with the trial court's determination that it did not have jurisdiction concerning the post-conviction issues but reversed and remanded the case for the determination of indigency and the appointment of counsel regarding the Petitioner's challenge to the validity of the indictment.
Jan. 28, 2008). This court pointed to Manny T. Anderson v. State, No. M2004-02116-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 739885, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 23, 2006) (directing habeas court to transfer petition to correct court for post-conviction review to be treated as a post-conviction petition) and State v. Charles Damien Darden, No. W2001-01833-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1482798, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 12, 2002) (noting that habeas court did not have jurisdiction over issues of post-conviction relief and was without jurisdiction to direct transfer to appropriate court for post-conviction review) as evidence of the disagreement among panels. Our supreme court noted that even if Carter's habeas petition could be treated as one for post-conviction relief, because the habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a post-conviction case, it could not direct a transfer to the appropriate court in the absence of statutory authority.
Because the petition in the present case failed to allege facts that would justify relief, the petitioner was not entitled to a hearing or the appointment of counsel, either in the trial court or on appeal. See also John H. Williams, Jr. v. Kevin Myers, Warden, No. M2002-00855-CCA-R3-CO, 2002 WL 31852857 (Tenn.Crim.App. Dec. 20, 2002), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. May 12, 2003); State v. Charles Damien Darden, No. W2001-01833-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1482798 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb. 12, 2002). CONCLUSION