The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. There was no evidentiary hearing. While the petitioner submits an extensive brief outlining a number of issues, we have summarized his claims as follows:
(1) whether the trial court erred when it determined that sentence reform legislation adopted in 1979 and 1989 did not apply to petitioner's sentence;
(2) whether the subsequent sentence reform acts deny petitioner equal protection under the law and due process of the law;
(3) whether the petitioner's sentence is cruel and unusual punishment;
(4) whether the trial court erred by not appointing counsel to represent the petitioner during this habeas corpus proceeding;
(5) whether the trial court erred by not allowing the petitioner an evidentiary hearing on this petition; and
(6) whether the trial court erred by determining that it did not have jurisdiction to alter the petitioner's sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.