Alan Head v. State

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedAugust 27, 1998
Docket01C01-9802-CR-00082
StatusPublished

This text of Alan Head v. State (Alan Head v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alan Head v. State, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

ALAN D. HEAD, AT NASHVILLE

) FILED ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9802-CR-00082 Appellant, ) August 27, 1998 (No. 95C-1699 Below) ) VS. ) DAVIDSON C OUNTY Cecil W. Crowson ) The Hon. Seth Norman Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) (Dismissal of Post-Conviction Petition) Appellee. ) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the state's motion to affirm the judgment

of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Having reviewed

the petitioner’s brief, the state’s motion, and the entire record, we find that the state’s motion

is well taken. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20.

It appears that the petitioner was indicted on five counts of aggravated sexual

battery and on three counts of r ape of a child . He subseq uently pled guilty to three counts of

aggravated sexual battery. The petitioner contends that the indictment was fatally defective

and that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter a plea of guilty. In his brief, the

petitioner concedes that our Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Hill, 974 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn.

1997), is contrary to his position, but he contends that the issue should be revisited. As an

intermediate appellate court, it is our duty to apply the law as promulgated by the legislature

or as announced by our Supreme Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the judgment

pursuant to Rule 20 is granted. The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. The

petitioner being indigent, costs of this appeal are taxed to the state.

________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_______________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Alan Head v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alan-head-v-state-tenncrimapp-1998.