IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
OCTOBER 1997 SESSION
FILED
December 23, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
JERRY L. HUGHES, )
) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9611-CC-00408
Appellant, )
) LAKE COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. JOE G. RILEY, JR.,
BILLY COMPTON, Warden, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Habeas corpus)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JERRY HUGHES (pro se) JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Register No. 111099 Attorney General & Reporter
Rt. 1, Box 330
Tiptonville, TN 38079-9775 ELIZABETH T. RYAN
Asst. Attorney General
450 James Robertson Pkwy.
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. PHILLIP BIVENS
District Attorney General
P.O. Drawer E
Dyersburg, TN 38024
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
JOHN H. PEAY,
Judge
OPINION
The petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 26,
1996, alleging that he is being illegally restrained pursuant to a forty year sentence
imposed in 1986 for two counts of aggravated rape. He contends that the underlying
convictions are void because they are based on an invalid indictment. He alleges that
the indictment is invalid because neither count includes an allegation of the mens rea
element of the offense. The petitioner relies on this Court's opinion in State v. Roger
Dale Hill, Sr., No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267, Wayne County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed June
20, 1996, at Nashville). The court below summarily dismissed the petition, and this
appeal as of right followed. We affirm.
We first note that the Hill case dealt with a post-1989 indictment whereas
this case involves a 1986 indictment. This Court has previously held that its decision in
Hill is inapposite to pre-1989 indictments. See, e.g., James Clyde Saylor v. Howard
Carlton and State, No. 03C01-9612-CR-00453, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed
Oct. 31, 1997, at Knoxville). Moreover, irrespective of its applicability to this case, our
Supreme Court has overruled this Court's decision in Hill. See State v. Hill, __ S.W.2d
__ (Tenn. 1997). Further, each of the contested counts of the indictment in this case
alleges that the petitioner “with force and arms, in the County aforesaid, unlawfully, and
feloniously committed the offense of Aggravated Rape by engaging in unlawful sexual
penetration of [the victim], and the said [victim] is a child less than thirteen years of age.”
The use of the terms “with force and arms” and “feloniously” are sufficient to allege the
culpable mental state for aggravated rape.1 The petitioner's contention is therefore
1
The mens rea requirem ent for ag gravate d rape is inte ntional, kn owing or reckles s. See State
v. Hill , __ S.W .2d __, __ (Tenn . 1997).
2
without merit.
The judgment below is affirmed.
___________________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
CONCUR:
______________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
______________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
3