Entitled To Relief Based on Our Supreme Court'S Opinions In State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2D 725 ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
RICHARD CAPANYOLA, )
February 5, 1999
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9811-CC-00472
Appellant, )
Cecil W. Crowson
) WAYNE COUNTY
Appellate Court Clerk
VS. ) (No. 11561 Below)
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) The Hon. Robert Holloway
)
Appellee. ) (Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition)
) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state's motion to affirm the judgment
of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. After
reviewing the state’s motion, the appellant’s brief, and the record on appeal, the Court finds
that this is an appropriate matter for affirmance under Rule 20.
The petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus. In January of 1994, the petitioner was indicted on two counts of rape of
a child under the age of 13. Subsequently, the petitioner pled guilty to two counts of
aggravated rape. The petitioner contends that the judgment entered against him is void
because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged. He also
argues that because the culpable mental state was not included in the indictment, the trial
court was without jurisdiction to enter judgments of conviction.
While habeas corpus is a proper vehicle for seeking review of whether an
indictment is fatally defective, thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction, Dykes v.
Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998), the petitioner in the present case is not
entitled to relief based on our Supreme Court’s opinions in State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725(Tenn. 1997), and Crittenden v. State, 978 S.W.2d 929, 930 (Tenn. 1998).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the
judgment pursuant to Rule 20 is granted. The judgment of the trial court is hereby
affirmed. The petitioner being indigent, costs of this appeal are taxed to the state. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant’s request for appointment of counsel, which was
attached to his brief, is respectfully denied.
_____________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
_____________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-