Tommy Horton Tate v. State ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
JANUARY 1998 SESSION
February 13, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
TOMMY HORTON TATE, )
)
Appellant, ) No. 03C01-9707-CR-00264
)
) Morgan County
v. )
) Honorable E. Eugene Eblen, Judge
)
CHARLES JONES, WARDEN, ) (Habeas Corpus)
)
Appellee. )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Tommy Horton Tate, Pro Se John Knox Walkup
M.C.R.C.F. Attorney General of Tennessee
P.O. Box 2000 and
Wartburg, TN 37887 Michael J. Fahey, II
Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Charles E. Hawk, Jr.
District Attorney General
and
Frank Harvey
Assistant District Attorney General
P.O. Box 703
Kingston, TN 37763
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
Joseph M. Tipton
Judge
OPINION
The petitioner, Tommy Horton Tate, appeals as of right the Morgan
County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that
his convictions for rape of a child are void because the indictments do not allege the
required mens rea.
According to the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, the indictments
charged that the petitioner “did unlawfully engage in sexual penetration, to wit: fellatio,
with [the victim], who is less than thirteen (13) years of age . . . .” In State v. Hill, 954
S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997), our supreme court held that an indictment charging a
defendant with the unlawful sexual penetration of a person less than thirteen years of
age was sufficient to charge the mental state needed for rape, aggravated by the victim
being less than thirteen years old. Thus, under Hill, the allegations in the indictments
charge the offense for which the petitioner was convicted.
After full consideration of the record, the briefs, and the law governing the
issue presented, we are of the opinion that the trial court properly dismissed the
petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus relief and that no precedential value would be
derived from the rendering of a full opinion. Therefore, we conclude that the judgment
of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn Ct. Crim. App. R.
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
Gary R. Wade, Judge
Curwood Witt, Judge
2