State v. Billy Harris ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
DECEMBER 1998 SESSION FILED
March 12, 1999
BILLY JOE HARRIS, * C.C.A. # 02C01-9808-CC-00240
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
Appellant, * LAKE COUNTY
VS. * Hon. R. Lee Moore, Jr., Judge
FRED RANEY, WARDEN, * (Habeas Corpus)
Appellee. *
For Appellant: For Appellee:
Billy Harris, Pro Se John Knox Walkup
NWCX Site Two Attorney General and Reporter
Route 1, Box 660
Tiptonville, TN 38079 Clinton J. Morgan
Counsel for the State
425 Fifth Avenue North
Second Floor, Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. Phillip Bivens
District Attorney General
P.O. Drawer E
Dyersburg, TN 38024
OPINION FILED:__________________________
AFFIRMED
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
OPINION
The petitioner, Billy Joe Harris, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging
that his 1989 conviction for aggravated sexual battery was void for lack of
jurisdiction due to a faulty indictment. He also contended that certain of the
evidence offered by the state at his trial should have been excluded. The trial court
concluded the petition as "not [a] proper subject for habeas corpus relief." In this
appeal of right, the single issue is whether the judgment was void because of the
defective indictment.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The petitioner1 was convicted of aggravated sexual battery in 1989.
This court affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Billy Harris, No. 4 (Tenn. Crim. App.,
at Jackson, Aug. 22, 1990). After the grant of an application for permission to
appeal, our supreme court affirmed. State v. Harris, 844 S.W.2d 601 (Tenn. 1992).
In his action for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner asserts that the
indictment is fatally defective because it charged only that he "did unlawfully and
feloniously have unlawful sexual contact with a child under 13 years of age." He
claims that no culpable mental state was alleged by the state and that habeas
corpus relief was warranted by virtue of the holding by a panel of this court in State
v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June
20, 1996).
1
In 1997, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his conviction
for aggravated sexual battery was void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea. The trial
court de nied relief an d this cou rt affirme d pursu ant to Ru le 20. Billy Joe Har ris v. State , No. 02C01-
9610-CC-00333 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 24, 1997). The supreme court denied
application for permission to appeal, concurring in results only, on October 12, 1998. The petitioner
presents the same claim here and it has been previously determined. A petitioner may not "relitigat[e]
questions previously determined adversely to him in ... separate habeas corpus cases by courts of
com petent juris diction." Myers v. S tate, 462 S.W.2d 265, 269 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970) (citing Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40 -3811, -3 812); Young v. State, 539 S.W .2d 850 ( Tenn . Crim. A pp. 1976 ).
2
In State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997), however, the supreme
court reversed the holding in this court, ruling that "an indictment which fails to
allege [a] mental state will be sufficient to support ... [a] conviction so long as,
[among other things], the mental state can be logically inferred from the conduct
alleged." Id. at 726-27. In Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95, 96-97 (Tenn. 1998), our
supreme court applied the Hill analysis to determine whether a post 1989 Act
indictment for aggravated sexual battery was sufficient. The court held that "the
intentional nature of aggravated sexual battery may be inferred from the conduct
alleged in the indictment--unlawful sexual contact." Id. at 97. This Hill analysis is
applicable to pre-1989 Act indictments. Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn.
1998). The language of the indictment challenged here is the same as that in Ruff.
(More recently, our supreme court ruled that mere reference to the statute allegedly
violated will serve satisfactory notice. State v. Carter, ____ S.W.2d ____ (Tenn.
1999). Here there was no statutory reference.) These holdings by our high court in
Hill, Ruff, and Dykes control the disposition in this case. In our view, the indictment
satisfies the standard established by the supreme court.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
________________________________
Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge
CONCUR:
_____________________________
Thomas T. W oodall, Judge
_____________________________
John Everett Williams, Judge
3