State v. Paul Mason ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
AUGUST SESSION, 1997
FILED
PAUL ROBERT MASON, ) September 09, 1997
) No. 02C01-9611-CC-00404
Appellant ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) LAKE COUNTY Appellate C ourt Clerk
vs. )
) Hon. JOE G. RILEY, JR., Judge
BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN, )
) (Writ of Habeas Corpus)
Appellee )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
PAUL ROBERT MASON, Pro Se CHARLES W. BURSON
Register Number 108925 Attorney General and Reporter
Rt 1, Box 330
Tiptonville, TN 38079-9775 ELIZABETH T. RYAN
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. PHILLIP BIVENS
District Attorney General
P. O. Drawer E
Dyersburg, TN 38024
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
David G. Hayes
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Paul Robert Mason, appeals the trial court's dismissal of
his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. On October 14, 1985, the appellant
pled guilty to one count of aggravated rape in the Maury County Circuit Court
and was sentenced to twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department
of Correction. The appellant filed the instant petition on September 20, 1996,
alleging that the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment
failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged. The trial court properly
dismissed the petition on the basis that "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). Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court's dismissal of the petition.
Moreover, we find the substance of the appellant's claim to be without
merit. The appellant's reliance upon State v. Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267
(Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 20, 1996), is misplaced. The decision in Hill
involves a post-1989 indictment and specifically addresses Tenn. Code Ann. §
39-11-301(c)(1989) (requirement of a culpable mental state). The appeal now
before this court involves a pre 1989 Code indictment. Prior to 1989, the Code
did not contain a provision comparable to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-301(c).
Accordingly, the decision in Hill does not control review of the issue before us.
On the date of this offense, aggravated rape was defined as the "unlawful
sexual penetration of another" accompanied by an enumerated aggravating
circumstance, including that "the victim is less than thirteen years old." Tenn.
Code Ann. § 39-2-603(a)(4)(1982). The indictment in the present case charged
2
that the "[appellant] did unlawfully and feloniously, with force and coercion,
sexually penetrate . . . a ten year old minor child. . . ." 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.
The trial court's dismissal of the appellant's petition for writ of habeas
corpus is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
_____________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
____________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge
3