Thomas Tarpley ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FILED JANUARY SESSION, 1998 April 9, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson THOMAS RAY TARPLEY, ) Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9704-CC-00125 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) WAYNE COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JIM T. HAMILTON STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus) ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: J. MICH AEL O ’NEIL JOHN KNOX WALKUP P.O. Box 60125 Attorney General and Reporter Nashville, TN 37206 LISA A. NAYLOR Assistant Attorney General 425 5th Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243 VICTOR S. JOHNSON District Attorney General Washington Square Building 2nd Av enue N orth Nashville, TN 37201 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE ORDER The Petitioner, Thomas Ray Tarpley, appeals the trial court’s order denyin g his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He was indicted for rape, aggravated kidnapping, robbery and assumin g official character, which led to h is convictions for rape, aggravated kidnapping, a ssuming official character and p etit larceny. See State v. Thomas R ay Tarpley, C.C.A. No. 1203, Hamilton County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jun e 11, 1991 ) perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1991). He argues that his convictions are void beca use the indictme nts charg ing him w ith the offenses are fatally defective because they fail to allege the requisite mens rea. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition. The Petitioner filed his petition for habeas corpus relief on August 1 0, 1996. The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition without a hearing, which was granted by the trial court in an order entered on January 31, 1997. The Petitione r nows a ppeals the judgm ent of the tria l court. In suppo rt of his petition and arg umen t, the Petitioner relies primarily upon the decision of this Co urt in State v. Rog er Da le Hill, C.C.A. No. 01C01-9508-CC- 00267, Wa yne Co unty, (Te nn. Crim . App., N ashville, 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. The Petitioner was indicted for offenses that occurred on -2- April 29, 198 9. Secondly, our supreme court has reversed this Court’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 indictme nts and we conclude that the indictments adequately alleged the criminal offenses charged and sufficiently informed the Petitioner of the charges against him such that the co nvicting court had jurisdiction. We see no reason for further discussion or analysis. The Petitioner’s convictions are not void. Thus, he has no cognizable claim for the purposes of post-conviction relief or habeas corpus relief. See Charles Edward Orren v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9704-CR-00141, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 13, 199 8); George F. Jones, Jr. v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00062, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, F eb. 3, 199 8); Randy Blaine Knight v. Carlton, Warden, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00162, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., 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. Burch v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9610-CR-00391, Johnson Co unty, (Te nn. Crim . App., 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. N o. 03C 01-970 5-CR -00182 , Morga n Cou nty (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, Bledso e Cou nty (Ten n. Crim. A pp., Knoxville, Dec. 23 , 1997); Darryl Douglas Sheets v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9701-CR-00031, Johnson Co unty (Tenn. Crim. A pp., Kno xville, Dec. 23 , 1997); Jerry Co x v. State,C.C.A. No. -3- 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. A pp., Knoxville, D ec. 23, 19 97); Abel Rodrigu ez, 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 Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Kno xville, Dec. 23 , 1997; Gene Hibbard v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00077, Knox C ounty (T enn. C rim. App ., Knoxville, Dec. 23 , 1997). 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 trial cou rt is affirm ed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. ____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE CONCUR: ___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE ___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE -4-