State v. Mark Grimes ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
OCTOBER 1997 SESSION FILED
October 17, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
MARK L. GRIMES,
) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9610-CC-00337
Appellant, )
) Lake County
V. )
) Honorable Joe G. Riley, Jr., Judge
)
BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN, )
) (Habeas Corpus-Rape)
Appellee. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Mark L. Grimes, Pro se John Knox Walkup
Route 1, Box 330 Attorney General & Reporter
Tiptonville, TN 38079-9775
Deborah A. Tullis
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-4351
C. Phillip Bivens
District Attorney General
P.O. Drawer E
Dyersburg, TN 38024
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Mark L. Grimes, pled guilty to rape. He was sentenced to
twelve 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 rape.1 He argues that his conviction is, therefore, void.
The appellant bases his contention on State v. Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267
(Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, filed June 20, 1996). We note that several
panels of this Court have refused to follow Hill and that it is currently pending
review by the Tennessee Supreme Court.2
In Tennessee an indictment must (1) inform the defendant of the precise
charges; (2) enable the trial court to enter an appropriate judgment and sentence
upon conviction; and (3) protect the defendant against double jeopardy. State v.
Trusty, 919 S.W.2d 305, 309 (Tenn. 1996). It must be stated in ordinary and
concise language so that a person of common understanding will know what is
intended. Warden v. State, 381 S.W.2d 244 (Tenn. 1964).
The majority of this panel declines to follow Hill. We find that the
appellant’s indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of rape and was
constitutionally sound. He was fully apprised of the charges against him in
ordinary and concise language. The appellant’s indictment gave the convicting
1
The indictm ent against the appe llant stated: “on July 7, 1992 , in Shelby County, . . . did
unlawfully and coercively sexually penetrate [the victim] in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-503.”
2
For exam ple, State v. Wilson, No. 03C01-9511-CC-00355 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville,
filed Mar. 25, 199 7); State v. Burrell , No. 03C01-9404-CR-00157 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, filed
Feb. 11, 1997).
-2-
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
CONCUR:
__________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
__________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
-3-