1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NASHVILLE

WI LLI AM KIRK RILE Y, P RO 

### S E 

### v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 3280 Cheryl A. Blackburn, Ju dge

No. M2002- 02302-CCA -OT-CO - F iled October 5, 2004

The Petitioner, Wil liam Kirk Riley , appea ls the trial court' s denial of his pe tition for habea s corpus relief

. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court' s denial of r elief pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Th e Pe tit ion e r f a ils to a sse rt

a cog ni z ab l e claim for w hich habe as cor pus relief may be g rante d. Acc ording ly , the State' s motion is gr anted a nd the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of the Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
DAVID H. WELLES, J ., delivered t h e opini on of the c ourt, in which, JER RY L . SMI TH, J. and, ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER J . joined.
Wil liam Kirk Riley , pro se. Paul G. S ummers, Att orney Gene ral & R eporte r; J ennife r B ledsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION On April 15, 1998, a Hamilton County jury found petitioner g uiltyof first deg ree murder, f or which he r ece ived a life sentenc e. On J une 7, 2002, the petit ioner filed a petition for habe as cor

pus relief , alleg ing that the criminal indictment ag ainst him is defec tive and void on its face and that, as a re su lt, he is b e ing un la wf ull y re str a ine d. Spe c if

ic a lly , pe tit ion e r c on te nd e d that th e ind ic tme nt d id not set forth the statutory authority for whic h he wa s being indicted, fa iled to name the twe lve g rand jur or s, faile d to a de qu a te ly se t f orth the of

fe ns e fo r w hic h h e wa s b e ing c ha rg e d, g a ve a n in a de qu a te description of the crime or elements of the crime for which he was char g ed, did not state the time, name of the victim or the county

in which the crime occur

red, w as not properly filed by the clerk of the circ uit court, and wa s not concluded by the phra se “a g ainst the peac e and dignity of the state of2

Tenne ssee.” The trial court dism issed the petit ion for failure to state a cog nizable claim and f ailure to attach a

copy of the trial c ourt judg ment.
Article I , Section 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante es the rig ht to seek habe as corpus r elief and Tenne ssee Code A nnotated Sections 29-21- 101 et seq. c od if y the app lic able proce dures f

or see king a

writ. Howe ver, the g rounds upon which our law provide s relief

are very narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A writ of ha beas c orpus may

be g rante d only

when the pe titioner has established lac k of jurisdiction for the or der of confine ment or that he is other wise entitled to immediate re lease beca use of the e x piration of his sentenc e. See Ussery

v. Avery , 22 2 T e nn . 5 0, 43 2 S. W.2 d 6 56 (1 96 8) ; State e x re l. Wa de v. No rv e ll , 1 Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 44 7, 44 3 S. W.2 d 8 39 (1 96 9) . M or e ov e r, ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f i s a va ila

blein this state only

when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re cord that the trial court wa s without jurisdiction t o convict or se ntence the def endant or that the sentenc e of imprisonment has oth e rw ise e xpir e d. Ar c he r v . St a te , 85 1 S. W.2 d 1 57 , 1 64 (T e nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v. State , 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . There is no contention that Petiti oner’ s sentence has expired.

I nitially , we note that the petitioner has not complied with the statutory require ments for pursuing a writ of habea s corpus. The petitioner fa iled to attach a copy of his underlying judgme nt or to addre ss his failure to do so, as re quired by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-107(2)

. "Without question, the procedur al provisions of the habe as cor pus statutes are mandatory and mus t be fo llo we d s c ru pu lou sly ." Ar c he r v . St a te , 851 S.W .2d at 165 (c iting B ateman v. Smith, 194 S.W .2d 336, 337 (Tenn. 1946) ). In view of the petitioner' s failure to comply with the mandatory

statutory provisions for see king ha beas c orpus re lief, the c ourt conc ludes that summary dismiss al of the pe tition was proper. State e x rel. Allen v. Johnson, 394 S .W.2d 652, 653 (Tenn. 1965) ; State ex rel. W ood v. J ohnson, 393 S.W .2d 135, 136 (Tenn. 1965)

. No tw ith stand ing the fa c t th at th e c ou rt c ou ld e ndits a na ly sis a t th is p oin t, the c ou rt wi ll a dd re ss the me ri ts o f the pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims

. Petitioner has alleg ed that his conviction for first deg ree murder is fatally defe ctive, c aus ing the tr ia l c ou rt

to b e wi tho ut s ub

je c t matte r j urisd ic tio n to c on vic t hi m. T he ind ic tme nt i n the app e llate re c or d r e a ds a s f oll ow s:

THE GRAND J URORS for the State af oresa id, being duly

summoned, elec ted, impaneled, sworn and cha rg ed to inquire for

the body of the County

Afore said, up on the ir

oaths pr e se nt:

That Will iam/Kirk/Riley

here tofore on the 13 day of September

1986, in the th C o u n t y a f o r e s a i d , d i d u n l a w f

u l l y, f e l o n i o u s l y, w i l l f

u l l y, d e l i b e r a t e l y, m a l i c i o u s l y, pr e me dit a te dly

a ndof ma lic e a fo re tho ug ht a ssa ult , kill a ndmur de r D ou g la s G a ss, ag ainst the pea ce and dignity of the State.3

Ou r s ta te Sup re me Cou rt

ha s h e ld that a n in dic tme nt i s v a lidfo r c on sti tut ion a l pu rp os e s if it “provides suff

icient information (1) to enable the acc used to know the a ccusation to which answe r is require d, (2) to furnish the court ade quate ba sis for the entry of a pr oper judg ment, and (3) to prote ct the ac cused f rom double jeopa

rdy .” State v. Hill, 954 S.W .2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 19 97 ). Mo re ov e r, the fo rm of a n in dic tme nt mus t me e t th e statut ory re qu ir e me nts se t f

orth i n Te nn . Co de An n. Se c . 4 0- 13 -2 02 , w hic h p ro vid e s:

The indictment must state the fa cts constituting the of fense in ordinary

and concise lang uag e, without prolix ity or re petition, in such a manner as to ena ble a person of common understanding to know what is intended, a nd with that deg ree of ce rtainty

which will enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the prope r judgme nt; and in no case are such words a s “for ce and arms” or “contr ary to the form of the statute nec essary .”

I n revie wing the indictment in this case, it meets both the constitutional and statutory re qu ir e me nts . T he ind ic tme nt s e ts f orth the a c c us a tio n to wh ic h a n a ns we r w a s r e qu ir e d, a ndit does so in ordinary

and conc ise lang uag e, without prolix ity or re petition, so that a person of common understanding knows what is intended. The ref ore, pe titioner’s arg uments that the ind ic tme nt f

a ile d to a de qu a te ly

se t f orth o r d e sc ri be the c ri me fo r w hic h h e wa s c ha rg e d mu st fail. As for

petitioner’s re maining c laims, a revie w of the indictment shows that it was in fa ct filed by the cler k of the c ourt; stated the date , county , and name of the victim; conclude d with the phrase “ag ainst the pea ce and dignity of the state of

Tenne ssee; and w as sig ned by the g rand jury fore man. Moreove r, petitioner’ s remaining claims relate to proce dural, rather than substantive, safe g uards, a nd an objec tion to these types of de fec ts must be made pre -trial, and not in a collater al, post-trial habe as cor pus petition. S ee T enn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2); Marvin Anthony Matthews v. State, No. W2003-00106-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 WL 23100812, *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jac ks on , D e c . 3 1, 20 03 ); Ne lso n B . G ra ve s v . H ow ardCarl ton , Wa rd e n, No . 0 3C0 1- 97 05 -C R00171, 1998 WL

133840, *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Mar. 25, 1998), perm. app. de nied , (T e nn . 1 99 8) . Pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims a s to the de fe c tiv e ne ss o f the ind ic tme nt a rewi tho ut m e ri t.

Pe tit ion e r h a s f

a ile d to pr e se nt any

e vid e nc e that hi s se nte nc e ha s e xpir e d o r that hi s conviction for f

irst deg ree murder is void. Ac cording ly , the State’s motion is granted. The judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed in a ccor dance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.



### ____________________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES, JUDGE4