The opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
DECEMB ER SESSION, 1997 March 26, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
JERRY NELSON, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9704-CR-00142
)
Appe llant, )
)
) JOHNSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. LYNN BROWN
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CRIMINAL COURT OF JOHNSON COUN TY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JERRY NELSON JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter
TIMOTHY F. BEHAN
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243
DAVID CROCKETT
District Attorney General
Route 19, Box 99
Johnson City, 37601
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
ORDER
The Appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s dismissal of his pro
se petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It appears from the petition an d exhibits
filed therewith that the Appellant was convicte d of rape and se ntence d to life
imprisonment in 1977. On September 11, 1996, the Appellant filed the instant
habeas corpu s petitio n alleg ing tha t his judgment of conviction was void because
the indictment failed to adequately allege the culpable mental state required of
the offense charged. The trial court dismissed the petition. We conclude that the
Appellant is not entitled to habeas corpus relief and we therefore affirm the trial
court’s order o f dism issal.
In support of his petition and argument, the Appellant relies primarily upon
the decision of this Court in State v. Rog er Da le Hill, C.C.A. No. 01C01-9508-CC-
00267, W ayne County, (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 20, 1996). We first
note that this Court’s decision in Hill was based upon an interpretation of our new
criminal code, an d this cod e is applica ble only to o ffenses occurring after
November 1, 1989 . Secon dly, our sup reme c ourt has reversed this Co urt’s
decision in Hill. See State v. Hill, 954 S.W .2d 725 (Te nn. 1997).
In the case sub judice, we have examined the language of the challenged
indictment and we conclude that the indictment adequately alleged the criminal
offense charged and sufficie ntly infor med the Ap pellan t of the c harge again st him
such that the convicting court had jurisdiction. We see no reason for further
discussion or analys is. The Appe llant’s conv iction is not vo id. See Charles
-2-
Edward Orren v. S tate, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9704-CR-00141, Johnson County
(Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 13 , 1998); Georg e F. Jon es, Jr. v. State ,
C.C.A. No. 03C 01-970 2-CR -00062 , Johnso n Cou nty (Ten n. Crim. A pp.,
Knoxville, Feb. 3, 1 998); Randy Blaine Knight v. Carlton, Warden, C.C.A. No.
03C01-9705-CR-00162, Johnson Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Knoxville, Jan. 26,
1998); Perry C. Riley v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00181, Morgan
Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. App., Knoxville, Ja n. 23, 199 8); Roy A. B urch v. Sta te,
C.C.A. No. 03C01-9610-CR-00391, Johnson County, (Tenn . Crim. A pp.,
Knoxville, Jan. 16, 1 998); State v. Dare l G. Bo lin, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9212-CR-
00450, Cum berland Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Kno xville, Jan. 15 , 1998); Joseph
Ron ald Duclos v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00182, Morgan C ounty
(Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan. 16, 1998);State v. Rogers L. McKinley, C.C.A.
No. 03C01-9612-CR-00455, Bledsoe C ounty; (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan.
6, 1998); Timothy Wayne Johnson v. Bowlen, Warden, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9611-
CR-00443, Bledsoe County (Tenn. Crim. App., Kn oxville, Dec . 23, 1997 ); Darryl
Douglas Sheets v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C 01-970 1-CR -00031 , Johnso n Cou nty
(Tenn. Crim. A pp., Knoxville, Dec . 23, 1997 ); Jerry Co x v. State,C.C.A. No.
03C01-9610-CR-00392, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 23,
1997); Bruce B elk v. State , C.C.A. N o. 03C 01-970 3-CR -00109 , Morga n Cou nty
(Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 23, 1997); Abel Rod riguez, Jr. v. State,C.C.A.
No. 03C01-9612-CR-00463, Greene Co unty (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec.
23, 1997); Dona ld W ayne H olt v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00059,
Johnson County (T enn. C rim. App ., Knoxville, D ec. 23, 19 97; Gene H ibbard v.
State, C.C.A . No. 03C 01-970 2-CR -00077 , Knox Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp.,
Knoxville, Dec. 23 , 1997).
-3-
W e conc lude th at no e rror of la w requ iring a reversal o f the jud gme nt is
apparent on the re cord. Ba sed up on a tho rough re ading o f the record , the briefs
of the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, the
judgment of the tria l court is affirme d in ac corda nce w ith Rule 20 of the Court of
Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.
____________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
___________________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-4-