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 W. BURTON, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9704-CR-00122
)
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 W. BURTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter
MICH AEL J . FAHE Y, II
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 convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the
first degree, assault with intent to commit murder, kidnapping and armed robbery
and sentenced to life imprisonment plus twenty -four ye ars in 1979. On August
30, 1996 , the Ap pellan t filed the instan t habe as co rpus p etition a lleging that his
judgm ents of con viction w ere vo id bec ause the ind ictme nt failed to adequa tely
allege the culpable mental state required of each offense c harged . The trial court
dismissed the petition. We conclude that the Appellant is not entitled to habeas
corpu s relief a nd we therefo re affirm the trial c ourt’s o rder of 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, Wa yne Co unty, (Te nn. 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, and this code is applicable only to offenses occurring after
November 1, 1989. Se cond ly, our su prem e cou rt has re verse d this C ourt’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
offenses charged and sufficiently informed the Appellant of the charges against
him such that the convicting court had jurisdiction. We see no reason for further
-2-
discussion or analys is. The A ppellant’s conviction s are no t void. See Charles
Edward Orren v. S tate, C.C.A. N o. 03C01-9704-C R-001 41, Joh nson C ounty
(Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 13, 1998); Georg e F. Jon es, Jr. v. State ,
C.C.A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-0 0062, J ohnso 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. A pp., Kno xville, Jan. 23 , 1998); Roy A. B urch v. Sta te,
C.C.A. No. 03C01-9610-CR-00391, J ohnso n Cou nty, (Ten n. Crim. A pp.,
Knoxville, Jan. 16, 1 998); State v. Darel G. Bolin, 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. 03 C01-9 705-C R-001 82, Mor gan C ounty
(Tenn. Crim. App ., Knoxville, Jan. 16, 199 8);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 Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Kno xville, Dec. 23 , 1997); Darryl
Douglas Sheets v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9701-CR-00031, Johnson Coun ty
(Tenn. Crim. App., 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 R odrigue z, Jr. v. State ,C.C.A.
No. 03C01-9612-CR-00463, Greene Co unty (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec.
23, 1997); Donald Wayne Holt v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00059,
Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 23 , 1997; Gene H ibbard v.
State, C.C.A. No. 03C0 1-9702 -CR-0 0077, K nox Co unty (Te nn. Crim . App.,
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-