Blye v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: May 18, 1998
• Docket: 03C01-9612-CR-00469
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE FILED OCTOBER SESSION, 1997 May 18, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk BRENT A. BLYE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9612-CR-00469 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. LYNN W. BROWN STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Direct Ap peal)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

BRENT A. BLYE JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter 149508 NECC POB 5000 Mountain City, TN 37683 SANDY R. COPOUS Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

DAVID CROCKETT District Attorney General Route 19, Box 99 Johnson City, TN 37601

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE OPINION Appellant Brent Blye was convicted by a jury on May 1, 1995 in the Sullivan

Coun ty Criminal Court for possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent

to sell and for evading arrest. As a Range I standard offender, Appellant

received the following concurrent sentences:1 (1) On the conviction for

possession with intent to sell, the trial court sentenced Appellant to ten ye ars

incarceration with the Tennessee Depa rtmen t of Co rrection , order ed him to pay

$26.50 to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund, and fined him $50,000.00.

(2) On the evading arrest conviction, the co urt ordered A ppellant to serve eleven

months and twenty-nine days jailtime, directed him to pay $26.50 to the Criminal

Injuries Com pens ation F und, a nd fine d him $2,500 .00. On September 10, 1996,

Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus and moved to proceed in

forma paup eris. In his application, Appellant alleged that he was being illegally

restrained under a void conviction in which the und erlying indic tment fa iled to

sufficie ntly state a mens rea. On October 28, 1996, the trial court denied

Appella nt's petition on the grou nd that the application failed to state a claim fo r

which habeas corpus relief could be granted. Appellant presents the following

issue for our consideration in this dire ct app eal: wh ether th e trial co urt erre d in

dismissing Appe llant's p etition fo r writ of hab eas c orpus prior to th e State 's filing

a response and without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

After a review of the record, we affirm the judgm ent of the trial court

pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

W e conclude that the trial court properly denied Appellant's application

prior to the filing of any response by the State. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109

1 The trial court ordered these sentences to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence resulting from a parole violation.

-2 - provides, "If, from the showing of the p etitione r, the pla intiff wou ld not be entitled

to any relief, the writ may be refused, the reasons for such refusal being briefly

endorsed upon th e petition, o r appen ded the reto." This Court has held that the

trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus under the

authority of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 where the petition fails to state a

cogniza ble claim . Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1994). See also W illiam Jon es v. State , C.C.A. No. 01C01-9308-CR-00272,

Davidson C ounty (Ten n. Crim. App ., Nashville, July 14, 1995 ).

Similarly, we find no merit in Appellant's complain t that the trial court

impro perly denied his application for writ of habeas corpus without conducting an

evidentiary hearing. "A full evidentiary hearing is not required for every petition

for habea s corpu s." We atherly v. Sta te, 704 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1985). An evid entiary hearin g is not warranted unless the petition er alleges facts

adeq uately demonstrating the void char acter of the procee dings w hich led to his

confinem ent. Id. (citing Russ ell v. Sta te ex re l Willis , 437 S.W.2d 529 (Tenn.

1969)).

The Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hill governs the

resolution of this question. 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). The Hill court h eld

that:

[F]or offens es wh ich ne ither ex press ly requ ire nor p lainly dispense with the requirem ent for a culpable mental state, an indictment which fails to allege such mental state will be sufficient to support prosecution and conviction for that offense so long as (1) th e lang uage of the in dictm ent is sufficient to mee t the cons titutional requ iremen ts of notice to the accused of the charge against which the accused must defend, adequate basis for entry of a proper judgment, and protection from double jeopardy; (2) the form of the indictment meets the requ iremen ts of Tenn . Code Ann. § 40-13-202; and (3) the me ntal state can be logically inferred from the conduct alleged. Id. at 726-27.

-3 - The indictment in the instant case is sufficient under this analysis.

Accord ingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Court of Criminal

Appeals Rule 20.

____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

-4 -