State v. Robert Taylor ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
December 21, 1998
ROBERT LEE TAYLOR, )
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) Appellate C ourt Clerk
Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9808-CC-00239
)
vs. ) LAKE COUNTY
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 98-7823
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the trial
court judgment by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
This case represents an appeal from the denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder in August 1982.
On July 21, 1998, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the
sufficiency of the first degree murder indictment returned in 1981. This Court recently
filed an order affirming the trial court’s denial of a similar petition for writ of habeas
corpus filed by the petitioner attacking the sufficiency of this very indictment. Robert
Lee Taylor v. State, No. 02C01-9701-CC-00019 (Tenn. Crim. App., November 3, 1997),
perm. to app. denied, (Tenn. November 24, 1997).
The petitioner contends the indictment at issue is void because it fails to
contain the requisite mens rea of the charged offense. The indictment alleges the
petitioner “unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and maliciously
did kill and murder [the victim].” At the time of the offense in this case, first degree
murder was defined as “[e]very murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or
by other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing, or committed in
the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, [one of the enumerated felonies, including
robbery].” T.C.A. § 39-2402 (1981 supp.). As we found in our previous order, the
indictment in this case satisfies constitutional and the then existing statutory
requirements. See Dykes v. Compton, -- S.W.2d -- (Tenn. 1998) (holding that the
analysis outlined in State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997) applies with equal
relevance to crimes committed before 1989).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED,
pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, that the judgment of the
trial court dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. Costs of this
appeal shall be assessed against the state.
_____________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
_____________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
_____________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
2