State v. Williard Croom

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON FILED JANUARY 1998 SESSION February 9, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. JAMES WILLARD CROOM, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk ) NO. 02C01-9703-CC-00104 Appellant ) ) LAKE COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. R. LEE MOORE, JR., BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

JAMES WILLARD CROOM (Pro Se) JOHN KNOX WALKUP #235162 Attorney General and Reporter L. C. R. C. F. Route 1, Box 330 ELIZABETH T. RYAN Tiptonville, TN 38079 Assistant Attorney General Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

C. PHILLIP BIVENS District Attorney General P. O. Drawer E Dyersburg, TN 38025-2005

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED - RULE 20

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE ORDER

Petitioner, James Willard Croom, sought habeas corpus relief in the Circuit

Court of Lake County alleging that his drug indictment was fatally insufficient for

failure to state the appropriate mens rea. Pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of

Criminal Appeals, we AFFIRM the trial court’s dismissal of the petition.

In his petition for writ of habeas corpus the petitioner alleged that the drug

indictment leading to his conviction and sentence was insufficient in charging that

he “did unlawfully possess with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance, to-wit:

cocaine....” He specifically alleges that this language fails to charge the appropriate

mens rea and is, therefore, void.

We find that the language of this indictment provided adequate notice to both

the defendant and the trial court of the offense alleged and is not deficient. State

v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997).

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED pursuant to Tennessee Court

of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

____________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE