State v. Williard Croom

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
FILED
JANUARY 1998 SESSION
February 9, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
JAMES WILLARD CROOM, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk
) NO. 02C01-9703-CC-00104
Appellant )
) LAKE COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. R. LEE MOORE, JR.,
BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JAMES WILLARD CROOM (Pro Se) JOHN KNOX WALKUP
#235162 Attorney General and Reporter
L. C. R. C. F.
Route 1, Box 330 ELIZABETH T. RYAN
Tiptonville, TN 38079 Assistant Attorney General
Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. PHILLIP BIVENS
District Attorney General
P. O. Drawer E
Dyersburg, TN 38025-2005
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED - RULE 20
JOE G. RILEY,
JUDGE
ORDER
Petitioner, James Willard Croom, sought habeas corpus relief in the Circuit
Court of Lake County alleging that his drug indictment was fatally insufficient for
failure to state the appropriate mens rea. Pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals, we AFFIRM the trial court’s dismissal of the petition.
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus the petitioner alleged that the drug
indictment leading to his conviction and sentence was insufficient in charging that
he “did unlawfully possess with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance, to-wit:
cocaine....” He specifically alleges that this language fails to charge the appropriate
mens rea and is, therefore, void.
We find that the language of this indictment provided adequate notice to both
the defendant and the trial court of the offense alleged and is not deficient. State
v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997).
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED pursuant to Tennessee Court
of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
____________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
________________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE