Villaneuva v. State ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1997 FILED
October 3, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
JOHN J. VILLANEUVA, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk
) No. 03C01-9611-CR-00425
Appellant )
) JOHNSON COUNTY
vs. )
) Hon. LYNN W. BROWN, Judge
HOWARD CARLTON, Warden, )
and STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) (Writ of Habeas Corpus)
Appellee )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
John J. Villanueva, Pro Se Charles W. Burson
117376 NECC POB 5000 Attorney General and Reporter
Mountain City, TN 37683
Michael J. Fahey, II
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
(AT TRIAL AND ON APPEAL)
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
David G. Hayes
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, John J. Villaneuva, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal
of his pro se application for writ of habeas corpus. 1 On July 16, 1987, the appellant
was found guilty by a Jefferson County jury of first degree burglary. Based upon this
“triggering” offense and requisite qualifying felony convictions, the appellant received
an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment after a jury found him to be an habitual
offender. 2 See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-1-801(repealed 1989). On November 10,
1987, the appellant pled guilty in the Jefferson County Criminal Court to one count
of rape, one count of sexual battery, and two counts of first degree burglary. The
court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-five years for these convictions and
ordered that this sentence run concurrently to his life sentence. The appellant is
currently incarcerated at the Northeast Correctional Center in Johnson County.
On August 12, 1996, the appellant filed an application for a writ of habeas
corpus alleging that the judgments entered against him on the charges of rape,
sexual battery, and habitual criminality are void because the indictment failed to
allege the mens rea of the offenses charged. The appellant’s petition also contends
that his “conviction” as an habitual criminal is void because his Illinois guilty plea
convictions establishing this classification were not knowingly entered pursuant to
Tennessee law. 3 Finding that the appellant’s claims were not appropriate for
habeas corpus relief, the Johnson County Criminal Court summarily dismissed the
appellant’s application. The appellant now appeals this decision alleging, inter alia,
1
We note that the spelling of the appellant’s surname in the State’s indictment and on
direct appeal is reflected as “Villaneuva.” However, the appellant’s pro se brief reflects the
spe lling “V illanue va.” F or pu rpos es of cons isten cy, we use t he na me of the appe llant a s it
appea rs on the indictm ent.
2
Spe cifica lly, in add ition to the “tr igger ing” o ffen se, th e Sta te’s n otice to the appe llant in
count fourteen of the indictment includes nine prior felony convictions from Illinois and one prior
felony conviction from Indiana.
3
The appellant contends that the Illinois court that accepted his guilty pleas did not inform
him that his convictions could subsequently be used to enhance any future out-of-state sentence.
2
that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his petition and, in the alternative,
that the trial court should have treated his petition as one for post-conviction relief.
After a review of the record, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
I. Summary Dismissal of Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The appellant first asserts that, regardless of the merits of his claims, the trial
court’s summary dismissal of his application for writ of habeas corpus without an
evidentiary hearing, without the appointment of counsel, without a reasonable
opportunity to amend his petition, and without requiring the State to file an answer to
the petition violated the appellant’s due process and equal protection rights. We
disagree.
The appellant misreads the procedural requirements involved in the issuance
of writs of habeas corpus. Briefly, to obtain such relief in Tennessee, a “prisoner”
must submit an application, in the form of a petition, for the issuance of a writ to the
court most convenient in location to the “prisoner.”4 See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-
101, -105, -107 (1980). If, from the face of the petition, the reviewing court finds
nothing to indicate that the appellant’s challenged convictions might be void, the
court shall dismiss the petititon and refuse the issuance of the writ.5 See Tenn.
Code Ann. § 29-21-101, -109. Therefore, it follows that if the writ is refused, a
hearing on the petition is precluded, thereby obviating any response from the State.
4
Contrary to the appellant’s assertions, the law in this State does not require the
appointm ent of lega l counse l in drafting an application for writ of ha beas c orpus. See State v.
Har ris, No. 01C 01-930 9-CR -00304 (Tenn . Crim. A pp. at Na shville, Nov . 10, 1994 ), perm. to app.
denied to app. denied to appeal denied, (Tenn. Mar. 6, 1995).
5
Add itiona lly, we n ote th at, in th at ha bea s co rpus proc eed ings are e sse ntially c ivil in
nature, the Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable where consistent with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-
21-101 et seq. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 provides trial courts the authority to dismiss complaints sua
sponte when the pleadings thereon fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
3
See Harris, No. 01C01-9309-CR-00304.
The procedural provisions pertaining to habeas corpus relief are mandatory
and must be scrupulously followed. Harris, No, 01C01-9309-CR-00304 (citing
Bateman v. Smith, 183 Tenn. 541, 543, 194 S.W.2d 336, 337 (1946)). Again, the
trial court found that the appellant’s application failed to state a claim which could
form the basis for habeas relief. W e agree. Allegations concerning the sufficiency
of the indictment are not the proper subject of habeas corpus relief. See Haggard v.
State, 475 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971); Brown v. State, 445 S.W.2d
669, 674 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969); Barber v. State, No. 01C01-9408-CR-00281
(Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Feb. 23, 1995). Moreover, it is well-established that
the appellant may not collaterally attack his Illinois convictions in this State. See
U.S. CONST . art. IV, § 1. See also Rhoden v. State, 816 S.W.2d 56, 66 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1991). We conclude that the trial court properly followed the provisions of
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 et seq. in summarily dismissing the petition. This
contention of the appellant is without merit.
II. Failure to Treat Application as Petition for Post-Conviction Relief
Next, the appellant argues that, regardless of this court’s ruling on the trial
court’s summary dismissal, the trial court should have considered his application for
writ of habeas corpus as a petition for post-conviction relief. See Tenn. Code. Ann.
§ 40-30-205(c) (1996 Supp.). The appellant pursued a direct appeal of his burglary
conviction and habitual criminal status. These judgments were affirmed. See State
v. Villaneuva, C.C.A. No. 77 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July 5, 1988), perm. to
app. denied to app. denied to appeal denied, (Tenn. Oct. 3, 1988). The appellant
did not pursue a direct appeal of his November 10, 1987, guilty plea convictions.
Accordingly, a petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the three-year statute
4
of limitations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (repealed 1995). Notwithstanding
being time-barred on its face, the petition raises no viable exception for tolling the
statute. Furthermore, a petition for post-conviction relief must be filed in the county
or judicial district in which the conviction occurred. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-
204(a) (1996 Supp.). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by
failing to treat the application as a petition for post-conviction relief. This issue is
without merit.
III. Sufficiency of the Indictments
Notwithstanding our previous holdings in this matter, we find the substance of
the appellant’s claim to be without merit. The appellant, in his application for writ of
habeas corpus, alleges that the judgments entered against him for the offenses of
“habitual criminal,” rape, and sexual battery are void because the indictment fails to
allege the mens rea of the offenses charged.6
Initially, we note that the appellant’s claim attacking his “conviction as an
habitual criminal” is ill-founded. This State’s habitual criminal statute, now repealed,
did not create an independent crime but defined a status prescribing circumstances
under which there was an enhanced penalty for the “triggering” offense. See
Pearson v. State, 521 S.W.2d 225 (Tenn. 1975). See also Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-
1-801. In order to establish the appellant’s status as an habitual criminal, the State
need only prove that the appellant has, in addition to the triggering offense, three
prior felony convictions, two of which must be included in the statutory list of
enumerated felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-1-801. Accordingly, no mental
element on behalf of the appellant is necessary for classification as an habitual
6
Although we con sider his c onvictions for rape a nd sex ual battery in this appea l, we note
that th e app ellant ’s brie f doe s not spec ifically c onte st the se c onvic tions , rathe r it is lim ited to his
“conviction as an ha bitual crim inal.”
5
criminal.
Moreover, considering all convictions herein challenged by the appellant, we
conclude that his reliance on State v. Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim.
App. at Nashville, June 20, 1996) and State v. White, No. 03C01-9408-CR-00277
(Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, June 7, 1995) is misplaced. The decisions in Hill
and White involve post-1989 indictments and specifically address Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 39-11-301(c)(1989) (requirement of culpable mental state). The appeal now
before this court involves an indictment returned in 1987. Prior to 1989, the Code
did not contain a provision comparable to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-301(c).
Accordingly, the decisions in Hill and White do not control review of the issue before
us.
On the date of the offenses in this case, rape and sexual battery were crimes
that required a defendant to have an “unlawful” or “felonious” intent. Tenn. Code.
Ann. § 39-2-604 (1982); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-607 (1987 Supp.). The indictment
in the present case charged that the appellant did “unlawfully” and “feloniously”
commit each charged offense. This language was sufficient under the law as it
existed at the time. See Campbell v. State, 491 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Tenn. 1973) (an
indictment using the words “feloniously” or “unlawfully” is sufficient). This issue is
without merit.
IV. Conclusion
After reviewing the appellant’s challenges on appeal and the substantive
merits of the claims raised in the appellant’s petition, we affirm the trial court’s
summary dismissal of the application for writ of habeas corpus.
6
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
_________________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
_________________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge
7