State v. James Hayes ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
AUGUST SESSION, 1997 FILED
March 30, 1998
JAMES EDWARD HAYES, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9610-CC-00326
) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
Appe llant, )
)
) LAKE COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. JOE G. RILEY
BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JAMES EDWARD HAYES JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter
TDOC #201739
Lake County Regional CLINTON J. MORGAN
Correc tional Fac ility Assistant Attorney General
Route 1, Box 330 450 James Robertson Parkway
Tiptonville, TN 38079 Nashville, TN 37243
PHILLIP BIVENS
District Attorney General
P. O. Draw er E
Dyersburg, TN 38024
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
OPINION
Appellant James Edward Hayes was convicted by a jury on February 25,
1993 in the Gibson County Circuit Court of two counts of aggravated sexual
battery. As a Ran ge I standard o ffender, Appe llant received two co nsecutive
twelve-year sentences with the Tenn essee D epartmen t of Correction. On August
2, 1996, Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the Lake
Coun ty Circuit Court. In his application, Appellant alleged that he was being
illegally restrained in Lake County on a conviction and sentence based upon a
fatally defective indictment which failed to allege a mens rea. On August 16,
1996, the trial court denied the writ on the ground that the judgment is not void
on its face and that Appellant is, therefore, not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
Appellant presents the following issue for our consideration in this dir ect ap peal:
whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
After a review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The Gibson County grand jury indicted Appellant on two counts of
aggravated sexual battery. The indictment reads as follows:
COUNT ONE : THE GRA ND JU ROR S of GIB SON Coun ty,
Tennessee
duly empaneled and sworn, upon their oath, present
that JAMES EDWARD HAYES on divers occasions upon or
after the 1st day of May, 1992, and prior to the 1st
day of July, 1992, the exact days and dates thereof
being to the G rand Jurors u nknown , in GIBSO N Coun ty,
Tenn essee , and be fore the find ing of this ind ictmen t,
did unlawfully engage in sexual contact with Betsy
Hayes, a person less than thirteen (13) years of age,
in violatio n of T. C.A. 3 9-13- 504, a ll of whic h is
against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.
SECOND CO UNT: And the Grand Jurors aforesaid upon
their oaths aforesaid, present further that on the
_____ da y of July, 1992, and in the aforesaid C ounty,
and within said jurisdiction, and before the finding
of this indictment, the aforesaid JAMES EDWARD HAYES
-2 -
did unlawfully engage sexual contact with Betsy Hayes,
a pers on les s than thirteen (13) ye ars of a ge, in
violation of T.C.A. 39-13-504, all of which is against
the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.
Both the Sixth Amendment to the United S tates Co nstitution a nd Article I,
§ 9 of the Tennessee Constitution afford the accused the right to be informed of
the "nature and cause of the accusation." Moreover, our legislature has
prescribed the contents of indictments. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-202 provides:
The indictment must state the facts constituting the offe nse in
ordinary and concise language, without prolixity or repetition,
in such a manner as to enable a person of common
understanding to know what is intended, and with that degree
of certainty which will enable the cour t, on conv iction, to
pronounce the proper judgment; and in no case are such
words as "force a nd arm s" or "contrary to the form of the
statute" necess ary.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-202.
The Tenn essee Supre me C ourt's decision in State v. Hill governs the
disposition of the case sub judice. 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). The Hill court
held that:
[F]or offens es wh ich ne ither ex press ly requ ire nor p lainly
dispense with the requirem ent for a culpable mental state, an
indictment which fails to allege such mental state will be
sufficient to support pros ecution and conviction for that
offense so long as (1) the la ngua ge of th e indic tmen t is
sufficient to mee t the cons titutional requ iremen ts of notice to
the accused of the charge against which the accused must
defend, adequate basis for entry of a proper judgment, and
protection from double jeopardy; (2) the form of the indictment
meets the requ iremen ts of Tenn . Code Ann. § 40-13-202; and
(3) the mental state can be logically inferred from the conduct
alleged.
Id. at 726-27.
The indictment in the instant case is sufficient un der Hill. Accordingly, the
trial court's judgment is affirmed.
-3 -
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
___________________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-4 -