Corso v. Jones ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION
December 16, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
MITCHELL L. CORSO, SR., )
) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9703-CR-00099
Appellant, )
) Morgan County
V. )
) Honorable E. Eugene Eblen, Judge
)
CHARLES JONES, WARDEN, )
& STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Habeas Corpus-Aggravated Rape)
)
Appellee. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Mitchell L. Corso, Sr., Pro Se John Knox Walkup
M.C.R.C.F. Attorney General & Reporter
P.O. Box 2000
Wartburg, TN 37887 Sandy Copous Patrick
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Charles E. Hawk
District Attorney General
Frank A. Harvey
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 703
Kingston, TN 37763
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Mitchell L. Corso, Sr., pled guilty to aggravated rape. He
was sentenced to fifteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of
Correction. He, thereafter, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief. In his petition
he alleged that the indictment against him was insufficient for failing to allege a
mens rea. He contends his conviction is void. The trial court dismissed the
petition finding that it was not proper for habeas corpus review. The trial court
based this finding on the fact that the appellant’s conviction was not void on its
face and that his sentence had not expired. He appeals this dismissal. Upon
review, we affirm.
The appellant contends that the indictment against him did not sufficiently
allege the mens rea for aggravated rape.1 The appellant bases his theory on
State v. Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, filed
June 20, 1996). The Tennessee Supreme Court has recently reversed Hill
holding that indictment was constitutionally and statutorily valid. State v. Hill, No.
01-S-01-9701-CC-00005 (Tenn. Nov. 3, 1997). The Court held the following:
[F]or offenses which neither expressly require nor plainly dispense
with the requirement 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) the language of the indictment is
sufficient to meet the constitutional
requirements 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
requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-
13-202; and
1
The indictment against the appellant stated that he “did knowingly and feloniously commit the
offense of aggravated rape by having unlawful sexual penetration of [the victim], age twelve years, by
having sexual intercourse with [the victim].”
-2-
(3) the mental state can be logically
inferred from the conduct alleged.
Id. at 3.
In this case sub judice, we find that the appellant’s indictment sufficiently
alleged the elements of aggravated rape and was constitutionally and properly
drafted. The facts as alleged in the indictment make the mental state required
for conviction logically obvious. The appellant was fully apprised of the charges
against him in ordinary and concise language. His indictment gave the
convicting court an adequate basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the
appellant’s conviction is not void and is improper for habeas corpus review.
Accordingly, we find no error of law mandating reversal. The judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
__________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
-3-
CONCUR:
______________________________
JOSEPH B. JONES, Presiding Judge
______________________________
J. CURWOOD WITT, JR., Judge
-4-