### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE
JAM ES D UBO SE v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE, KEV IN M YER S, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Wayne County

No. 13370 JimT. Hamilton, Judge

No. M2004- 01021-CCA -R3-HC - F iled October 15, 2004

This matter wa s prese nted to the Court upon the motion of the State of Te nnessee , pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of C ri m i n al Appeals of Tenne ssee, f or this Court to affirm the judgme nt of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Affir m e d P ur sua nt

to Rul e 20 of t he Te nne sse e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als . T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J ERRY L. S MI TH , J J ., joined.
J ames Dubose , Tiptonvill e, Te nnessee , pro s e . Paul G . Summe rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l andRe po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; and T. Micha el B ottoms, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION Petitioner, J ames Dubose , filed a pe tition for habea s corpus re lief in the Circu i t C ourt of Way ne County , attacking his conviction in the Wi lliamson County Circuit Court f or the off ense of felony murder by

ag g ravated child abuse . He wa s sentence d to impriso n m ent for life. The conviction wa s af

fi rm ed on direc t appea l. Se e Sta te v . D ub os e , 953 S.W .2d 649 (Tenn. 1997)

. Pe tit ion e r s ub se qu e ntl y

fi le d a pe tit ionfo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f, wh ic h w a s d e nie d by thetria l c ou rt

. This too, was aff

irmed. Se e Du bo se v . S tate , N o. M2 00 0- 00 47 8- CCA -R3-C D, 20 01 Te nn . Crim. App. LEXI S 93 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Na shville, Feb. 1, 2001) , perm. to appeal de nied (T e nn . O c t. 1, 2001). In his petition for writ of h ab ea s co rp us, Petiti oner c ontends that he is entitled to relief beca use er roneous jury

instructions reg arding the “r eckle ss” mens rea consti t u t ed a construc tive amendment of

the indictment leading to a void conviction.
The trial c ourt summarily dismiss ed the pe tition for habea s corpus upon motion of the State. On appea l, the State corr ectly arg ues, and we thus a g ree , that at most, the judgme n t wo u l d be-2-

voidable an d not void. Theref ore, ha beas c orpus re lief is not warr anted. See, e .g., Passarella v. Sta te , 8 91 S.W. 2d 61 9, 62 6 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ) ( re me dy of ha be a s c or pu s inc ri min a l c a se s is lim ite d to c a se s w he rethe ju dgmen t is void o r the te rm of imp ri so nme nt h a s e xpir e d) ; s e e als o Thornton v. Raney , N o. 02 C01 -9 30 2- CC- 00 02 5, 19 94 Te nn . Crim. Ap p. LEX I S 41 , * 3 ( Te nn . C rim. App. at Jackson, J an. 26, 1994) ( holding that e rrone ous j ury instructions meet none of the require ments for ha

beas c orpus re lief).
T h e j u d g m e n t w a s r e n d e r e d i n t h i s m a t t e r i n a p r o c e e d i n g b e f

o r e t h e tr i a l c o u rtw i t h o u ta j u r y, a ndthejud g me nt w a s no t a de te rm inatio n of g uil t, a nd the e vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t thefi nd ing of

thetria l c ou rt

. Upon revie w of this matter , this c ourt conclude s that no err or of law r equiring a re versa l of the judg ment of the trial c ourt is appar ent on the re cord.
CO NC LU SION
Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

_________________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE