Whether it would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice if failure to entertain petitioner constitutional claims

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I.WHETHER IT WOULD RESULT IN A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IF FAILURE TO ENTERTAIN PETITIONER CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS; 1.That the State of Tennessee lack jurisdiction to incarcerated . Petitioner Madkins,because he have served his twenty-five(25) years sentence,from September 27th,1993 to September 27th,2018, thereby the State is unlawfully holding Madkins's in custody in restraint of his liberty without due process of law in . violation of the Constitution,or Laws,or Treaties of the United States; A.Due to the State Obstruct the enforcement of the State court judgment by altering the judgment from twenty-five(25) years to forty-three(43) years,by running a void 18 years sentence consecutive to the 25 years sentence to reflect 43 years on TDOC website for the sole purpose to false imprisoned Madkins's until November 26th,2021,which is unconstitutional and constitute willfully Kidnapped in violation of the Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment,and Federal laws 18 U.S.C.242,and 18 U.S.C. 1509. On November 4th,2003,Shelby County Criminal Court through postconviction relief,modified Case #9400771 for especially aggravated robbery from a 60 years sentence as a Career offender to 25 years as a Standard Range I offender. This modified order stated to award pre-trial jail credit of 3,691 days from September 27th,1993 to November 4th,2003. (copy judgment form attached as Exhibit-1) : The trial court of Shelby County did not run the void 18 years sentence in case#8404503 consecutive to the 25 years sentence to reflect 43 years. The November 4th,2003 sentencing judgment has expired on the face of the record after Madkins done served his term of imprisonment of 25 years from September 27th,1993 to September 27th, 2018. It should be without doubt that Madkins's has a clearly established constitutional rights to be immediate released from prison once he had served his sentenced because at that point the State loses its lawful authority and jurisdiction to hold him in custody.Therefore any continued detention unlawfully deprives Madkins of his liberty in which his liberty is protected from unlawful state deprivation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY oe Mr.Madkins was arrested on July 29,1984 ,and charged with assault with intent to commit robbery,case # 8404503(Case-A) ;he was released on bond. On August 14,1984,Mr.Madkins was arrested for robbery with a deadly weapon, case #8404938-39 (Case-B);after these charge were dismissed at the preliminary hearing in September of 1984 ,Mr .Madkins was .again released on bond with respect : to Case~A. Mr.Madkins was arrested yet again for robbery on October 14,1984,case #8500678 through 8500681 (Case-C). In April 1985,a jury convicted Mr.Madkins of assault with intent to commit robbery and aggravated assault in Case-A.In May of 1985,he was sentenced to 18 years.(See Addendum-15 attached Petition) The State Prosecutor then entered into a plea bargain with Mr.Madkins providing that he would plead guilty to the five felonies in the B and C Cases and that his sentences would run concurrently with the sentence in Case-A.In May 1985, the trial Court sentenced Mr.Madkins in B and C Cases to 21 years to run concurrently with the 18 years sentence in Case-