Billy Aldridge v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: February 13, 1998
• Docket: 01C01-9704-CR-00142
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED DECEMBER 1997 SESSION February 13, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk BILLY W. ALDRIDGE, ) No. 01C01-9704-CR-00142 ) Appellant ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY V. ) ) HON. CHERYL BLACKBURN, STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus) ) )

For the Appellant: For the Appellee:

Billy W. Aldridge John Knox Walkup Riverbend Maximum Security Attorney General and Reporter Institution 7475 Cockrill Bend Industrial Rd. Ellen H. Pollack Nashville, 37209 Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Victor S. Johnson, III District Attorney General

Roger D. Moore Assistant District Attorney 222 Second Avenue North Washington Square Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

William M. Barker, Judge OPINION

The appellant, Billy W. Aldridge, appeals as of right the dismissal in the

Davidson County Criminal Court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In that

petition, appellant challenged the validity of his convictions alleging a defective

indictment and an unconstitutional sentence. The trial court summarily dismissed the

petition, finding that the grounds alleged were appropriate for post-conviction relief,

but not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding. Because appellant was convicted

in Shelby County, the trial court was unable to treat the petition as one seeking post-

conviction relief.1 See Tenn. Code Ann. §40-30-204(a) (Supp. 1996) (requiring post-

conviction petition be filed in the court of conviction).

According to appellant’s petition, he pled guilty on May 18, 1992, to attempted

second degree murder, aggravated rape, and aggravated robbery and received a

sentence of eight years. His only challenge on appeal is that the indictment charging

him with aggravated rape was deficient for failing to state the requisite mens rea.

Unfortunately, we are unable to review appellant’s issue because of an insufficient

record. The technical record does not contain a copy of the indictment, nor does

appellant’s petition or appellate brief cite the language that was contained in the

indictment. Without the contested language, we are unable to determine its

sufficiency.

It is the duty of the appellant to prepare a record which conveys a fair, accurate

and complete account of what transpired with respect to the issues forming the basis

of the appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b) and State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560

(Tenn. 1993) (citations omitted). An appellate court is precluded from considering the

merits of an issue where the relevant material is absent from the record. Id. We must

decline to review the issue.

1 In addition to the jurisdictional bar, we note that post-conviction relief for the appellant is barred by the statute of limitations. Tenn. Code Ann. §40-30-202 (Supp. 1996)

2 Moreover, appellant supports his argument by relying on this Court’s opinion in

State v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr., No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. at

Nashville, June 20, 1996), a decision which was recently reversed by our supreme

court. State v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr., No. 01S01-9701-CC-0005 (Tenn. at Nashville,

November 3, 1997). Therefore, even if appellant’s indictment were in the record

before us, in all likelihood, appellant’s claim would be without merit.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee

Court of Criminal Appeals.

_______________________________ William M. Barker, Judge

____________________________ Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge

____________________________ Paul G. Summers, Judge