Ronnie G. Oliver v. State ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE
October 1, 1999
APRIL 1999 SESSION Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
RONNIE OLIVER, * C.C.A. 03C01-9806-CR-00198
Appellant, * MORGAN COUNTY
vs. * Hon. E. Eugene Eblen, Judge
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus)
Appellee. *
For Appellant: For Appellee:
Ronnie Oliver John Knox Walkup
B.M.C.X. Box 2000 Attorney General and Reporter
Wartburg, TN 37887 425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Ellen H. Pollack
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED - RULE 20
NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE
OPINION
The petitioner, Ronnie Oliver, appeals the summary dismissal of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the Criminal Court of Morgan County on
November 6, 1997. The limited record before this court reflects that, in 1996, the
petitioner was charged with and convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual
battery and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. 1 The
petitioner received an effective sentence of eighteen years incarceration in the
Tennessee Department of Correction. He did not appeal his convictions until April
3, 1997, when he filed the instant petition for habeas corpus relief. In his petition,
he asserted that the presentments underlying his convictions were fatally defective
for failing to allege the applicable mental states of the charged offenses. In
declining to appoint counsel or conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to dismissing
the petition, the trial court cited our supreme court’s decision in State v. Hill, 954
S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997), and concluded that the petitioner had failed to state a
cognizable ground for relief. Following a thorough review of the record, we conclude
that this is an appropriate case for affirmance pursuant to Ct. of Crim. App. Rule 20.
The Habeas Corpus Act requires a court to review a petition and
dismiss it unless it alleges a cognizable ground for relief. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-
21-101 to –109 (1980). In other words, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be
summarily dismissed by the trial court without appointment of counsel, without an
evidentiary hearing, and without the opportunity to amend the petition, if the face of
the petition does not present a cognizable claim. Mitchell v. Carlton, No. 03C01-
9704-CR-00125, 1998 WL 8505, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, January 12,
1
The petitioner claims in his petition that he was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual
battery. However, he attached to his petition presentments charging him with three counts of
aggravated sexual battery and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The
petitioner failed to attach copies of the judgments of conviction. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 29-21-107(b)(2)
(1980).
2
1998). See also State ex rel. Byrd v. Bomar, 381 S.W.2d 280, 283 (Tenn. 1964).
Upon review of the challenged presentments, we agree that the petitioner has failed
to present a cognizable claim. First, we note that the presentment for especially
aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor does set forth the applicable mental state.
Second, with respect to the presentments for aggravated sexual battery, we
conclude that they comport with the requirements of Hill, 954 S.W.2d at 726-727.
See also Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95, 96-98 (Tenn. 1998).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Ct. of
Crim. App. Rule 20.
Norma McGee Ogle, Judge
CONCUR:
Jerry L. Smith, Judge
Joe G. Riley, Judge
3