Blye v. State ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
OCTOBER SESSION, 1997 May 18, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
BRENT A. BLYE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9612-CR-00469
)
Appe llant, )
)
) JOHNSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. LYNN W. BROWN
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Direct Ap peal)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
BRENT A. BLYE JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter
149508 NECC POB 5000
Mountain City, TN 37683 SANDY R. COPOUS
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
DAVID CROCKETT
District Attorney General
Route 19, Box 99
Johnson City, TN 37601
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
OPINION
Appellant Brent Blye was convicted by a jury on May 1, 1995 in the Sullivan
Coun ty Criminal Court for possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent
to sell and for evading arrest. As a Range I standard offender, Appellant
received the following concurrent sentences:1 (1) On the conviction for
possession with intent to sell, the trial court sentenced Appellant to ten ye ars
incarceration with the Tennessee Depa rtmen t of Co rrection , order ed him to pay
$26.50 to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund, and fined him $50,000.00.
(2) On the evading arrest conviction, the co urt ordered A ppellant to serve eleven
months and twenty-nine days jailtime, directed him to pay $26.50 to the Criminal
Injuries Com pens ation F und, a nd fine d him $2,500 .00. On September 10, 1996,
Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus and moved to proceed in
forma paup eris. In his application, Appellant alleged that he was being illegally
restrained under a void conviction in which the und erlying indic tment fa iled to
sufficie ntly state a mens rea. On October 28, 1996, the trial court denied
Appella nt's petition on the grou nd that the application failed to state a claim fo r
which habeas corpus relief could be granted. Appellant presents the following
issue for our consideration in this dire ct app eal: wh ether th e trial co urt erre d in
dismissing Appe llant's p etition fo r writ of hab eas c orpus prior to th e State 's filing
a response and without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
After a review of the record, we affirm the judgm ent of the trial court
pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
W e conclude that the trial court properly denied Appellant's application
prior to the filing of any response by the State. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-1091
The trial court ordered these sentences to run consecutively to a previously imposed
sentence resulting from a parole violation.
-2 -
provides, "If, from the showing of the p etitione r, the pla intiff wou ld not be entitled
to any relief, the writ may be refused, the reasons for such refusal being briefly
endorsed upon th e petition, o r appen ded the reto." This Court has held that the
trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus under the
authority of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 where the petition fails to state a
cogniza ble claim . Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1994). See also W illiam Jon es v. State , C.C.A. No. 01C01-9308-CR-00272,
Davidson C ounty (Ten n. Crim. App ., Nashville, July 14, 1995 ).
Similarly, we find no merit in Appellant's complain t that the trial court
impro perly denied his application for writ of habeas corpus without conducting an
evidentiary hearing. "A full evidentiary hearing is not required for every petition
for habea s corpu s." We atherly v. Sta te, 704 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1985). An evid entiary hearin g is not warranted unless the petition er alleges facts
adeq uately demonstrating the void char acter of the procee dings w hich led to his
confinem ent. Id. (citing Russ ell v. Sta te ex re l Willis , 437 S.W.2d 529 (Tenn.
1969)).
The Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hill governs the
resolution of this question. 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). The Hill court h eld
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 prosecution and conviction for that
offense so long as (1) th e lang uage of the in dictm ent 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 me ntal state can be logically inferred from the conduct
alleged.
Id. at 726-27.
-3 -
The indictment in the instant case is sufficient under this analysis.
Accord ingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Court of Criminal
Appeals Rule 20.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
GARY R. WADE, JUDGE
___________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
-4 -