State v. Doyle Hart ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT JACKSON
    JANUARY 1998 SESSION
    FILED
    DOYLE HART,                       )                     February 18, 1998
    )    NO. 02C01-9703-CC-00102
    Appellant,                  )                    Cecil Crowson, Jr.
    Appellate C ourt Clerk
    )    LAKE COUNTY
    VS.                               )
    )    HON. J. STEVEN STAFFORD,
    BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN,            )    JUDGE
    )
    Appellee.                   )    (Writ of Habeas Corpus)
    FOR THE APPELLANT:                     FOR THE APPELLEE:
    DOYLE HART, Pro Se                     JOHN KNOX WALKUP
    Register Number 201666                 Attorney General and Reporter
    Route 1, Box 330
    Tiptonville, TN 38079-9775             ELIZABETH T. RYAN
    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
    The petitioner, Doyle Hart, appeals the order of the Lake County Circuit Court
    dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He brought this petition claiming
    that the indictment charging him with aggravated rape and incest did not allege the
    appropriate mens rea. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20,
    Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
    Petitioner asserts that the indictment charging him with aggravated rape and
    incest was fatally defective in that it did not allege the specific mens rea. The
    indictment reads, in pertinent part, “that [petitioner] . . . unlawfully and feloniously
    did have unlawful sexual penetration of another,” in Count One; and petitioner “did
    unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [victim],” in Count Two. He
    argues that the failure to allege the specific mens rea in the indictment constituted
    the failure to allege an offense. Therefore, he claims that the judgment is void on
    its face.
    We find that the language of this indictment provided adequate notice to both
    the defendant and the trial court and is not deficient. See State v. Hill, 
    954 S.W.2d 725
     (Tenn. 1997).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20,
    Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
    JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
    CONCUR:
    JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
    PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02C01-9703-CC-00102

Filed Date: 2/18/1998

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014