### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 15, 200 8

DELI VETRI CK D. BLOC KER v. JIM WOR THING TON , WA RD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Cr iminal Cou rt f or Mor gan Coun ty No. 9392 E. Eugene Eb len, Jud ge

No. E2008-00881-CC A-R3- HC - Filed February 9, 2009

In19 96 , a

Hamil tonCou nty gr a ndjury in dic te d th e Pe tit ion e r, De liv e tr ic k D . Bl ocker, fo r f ir st degre e pre meditated murde r, first degr ee f elony murder , and espe cially ag g r a v ate d r o bbery. I n 1997,
a Hamil tonCou nty jury c on vic te d th e Pe tit ion e r o f f ir st d e gr e e fe lony mu rder a nde sp e c ia lly
a gg ra vate d ro bb e ry a nd se nte nc e d him to lif e imp ri so nme nt wi tho ut the po ssi bil ity of pa ro le fo r h is
mur d er co n v i ction. The trial c ourt sentenc ed him to twenty-two yea rs for e specia lly aggravated robbery, to be serve d consec utively to his life sentence. In 2008, the P etitioner filed a pr o s e petition for h ab ea s co rp us relief

, which the ha

beas c ourt summarily dismis sed. On a ppeal, the Petitioner contends that the tria l court er red w hen it dism issed his petition because: ( 1) the indictment cha rging him with murder was f

atally def ective be cause it did not allege an ove rt ac t; (2) the indictment char ging him with especially aggra vated r obbery w as fatally d ef ec t i v e because it varied fr om the judgment convicting him of attempted espe cially aggr avate d robbery, which require s proof of an over t act; and ( 3) the trial c ourt did not have jurisdiction to order his sentence s to be serve d
consec utively. After a

thorough revie w of the r ecor d and re levant a u t h o ri ties, we a ffirm the jud gme nt o f the ha

be a s c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Af firme d

R OBER T W. W EDEMEYER , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , JJ., joined.

Delivetric k D. Blocker, Pro se , Petros, Tenne ssee. Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Genera l and R eporte r; Michae l E. Moore, Sol icitor Gene ral; Rache l West Ha rmon, Assistant Attorney Ge nera l; for the Appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

In 1996, a Hamilton County grand jury indicted the Petitioner for f irst degre e pre meditated murder, f irst degre e fe lon y m u rd er, and espec ially aggra vated r obbery. A Hamilton County j ury2

convicted the Petitioner of first degr ee felony murder and espec ially aggra vated r obbery. The jury sentenc ed the Petitioner to life i n prison without the pos sibili ty of parole for his murder c onviction, and the tria l court sentenc ed him to twenty-two yea rs for his e specia l l y ag g ra v ated r obbery conviction, to be served conse cutively to his life sentenc e.
On di rec t appea l, this court affirmed the Petitioner’s felony murde r convic tion but modi fied the espe cially aggr avate d robbery conviction to attempted espe cially aggr avate d robbery. State v. Delive trick D. Block

er , No. 03C01-9803-CR-00120, 1999 WL 124 2 2 3 (T enn. C rim. App., at Knoxville, Mar. 10, 1999) , perm. app. de nied (Oc t. 4, 1999). The Petitioner then filed a petition for po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f, wh ic h th e tr ia l c ou rt de nie d, a nd thi s c ou rt a ff ir me d th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s jud gme nt. De liv e tri c k

De w o n B loc ke r v . S tat e , N o. E2 00 2- 00 03 6- CCA -R 3- PC, 2 00 3 W L 9 34 24 5 ( Te nn . Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar . 10, 2003), perm. app. de nied (June 30, 2003)

. The judgment forms from ea ch convic tion revea ls that the Petiti oner c ommitt ed the f elony murder and espec ially aggra vated r obbery of fense s on the same day, October 8, 1995. On direc t appea l, this Court set forth the following fac tual summary of the c onduct under lying the Petiti oner’ s c on vic tio ns :
De fe nd a nt a nd his se ve re d c od e fe nd a nts , c ou sin Rob e rt Blo c ke r a nd Ca lvi n Trammell, who we re a ll juveniles at the t ime of t his crime, called for a taxica b from
a Ha mil tonCou nty c on ve nie nc e sto re . Wh e n it arrive d, the y in str

uc te d th e drive r t o take them approximate ly one -half mile, to a location that the State cha rac terize d as wooded a nd seclude d, along a street with severa l vaca nt homes. As the per petrators exited the c ar, Def

endant hear d Robert Blocker de mand money fr om the driver, w ho
rea ched ove r betwe en the se ats. Def endant told police that he believed t he driver was
rea ching for a

gun, so he pulled a sa wed- off shotgun fr om his pants and pointed it at the drive r. He the n s ho t th e drive r at a rang e be tw e e n six a ndtw e lve inc he s f ro m hi s head. All thr ee perpe trators fled the sc ene, and an ar ea home owner discovere d the victim when the taxica

b cra shed into her patio.

Blocke r , 1999 WL 124223, at *1. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s murder conviction but conclude d that the evidenc e at the Petitioner’ s trial was insuffic ient to s u p p o rt h i s conviction for espec ially aggra vated robbery. Acc ordingly, this Court modified the espec ially aggra vated r obbery
c on vic tio n to a tte mpt e d e sp e c ia lly a gg ra vate d r ob be ry a nd re -s e nte nc e d th e Pe tit ion e r t o n ine ye ars , to be serve d consec utively to his l ife sente nce. Id. at *20.
In 2008, the Petitioner filed a petition f or habea s corpus relief

, claiming: (1) the indictment char ging him with m urder was fatally defe ctive bec ause it did not allege an overt a ct; (2) the indictment char ging him with especially aggra vated r obbery was fata lly de fec tive beca use it varied from the judgment c onvicting him of attempted espe cially aggr avate d robbery, which re quires proof of an o v e r t a c t; a n d ( 3 ) th e tria l c o u r t d id n o t h a v e ju r is d ic ti o n to o r d e r h is s e n te n c e s to be ser ved
consec utively because his offe nses occ urre d wi t h in twenty-four hours of e ach othe r. The ha beas court summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s reque st for habe as cor pus relief , and the Petitioner
app e a ls that ju dg me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.3 II. Ana lys is
Whether habe as cor

pus relief should be g rante d is a question of law. Ed war ds v . S tate , No. M2 00 6- 01 04 3- SC- R11 -H C, - - S .W. 3d -- , 2 00 8 WL 42 48 71 4, a t *2 (T e nn

. Se pt. 18 , 20 08 ). Thus , w e a p p l y de novo revie w and a ffor d no presumption of cor rec tness to the finding s and conc lusions of the c ourt below. Su mm e rs v . S tate , 212 S .W .3 d 251, 25 5 ( Te nn . 2 00 7) ; Hoga n v . M ill s , 168 S.W .3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)

. Article I , section 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution guarante es the right to see k habea s corpus re lief. Se e Fa ulk

ne r v . S tat e , 2 2 6 S. W

. 3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 7 )

. T e n n e s s e e s tatu te , h o weve r, governs the e xerc ise of this consti t u t i o n al g u arantee. See T.C.A. § 29-21-101 ( 2006). Although statute does not limit t he number of requests for ha beas c orpus re lief a pe titioner may make, it does
narr owly limit the grounds upon which a court may gr ant habe as cor pus relief

. Tay lor

v . S tat e , 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). The petiti oner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidenc e that “the sentence is void or that confineme nt is il legal.” Wy att v . S tat e , 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). In other

words, a pe titioner must base his re quest for ha beas c orpus re lief upon the following very na rrow gr o u n d s : (1) a claim that, bec ause the convicting court was without jurisdiction or
auth ority to s e nte nc e the pe tit ion e r, the c on vic tin g c ou rt ’s jud gm ent is fa c ia lly inv a lida nd , th us , void; or (2) a

claim that the petitioner’ s senten ce h as expire d. Stephenson v . Carlton , 28 S.W.3d 91 0, 91 1 ( Te nn . 200 0); Ar c he r v . S tat e , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) . Also, “[a ]n illegal sentenc e, one w hose imposition di rec tly contrave nes a statu t e, is consider ed void and may be set aside at any time.” May v . Carlton , 245 S.W.3d 340, 344 (Tenn. 2008) (citing Sta te v . B ur k ha rd , 56 6 S. W .2 d 8 71 , 8 73 (T e nn . 1 97 8) . I n c on tr a st, a vo ida ble jud gme nt i s “ on e tha

t is fa c ia lly va lid
a ndre qu ir e s th e int

ro du c tio n o f p ro of

be yo ndthe fa c e of

the re c or d o r j udgm ent to e sta bli sh its validity.” Taylor , 9 55 S.W . 2 d at 83 ; se e Sta te v . R ic hie , 20 S.W.3d 624, 633 (Tenn. 2000)

. A h abe a s c ou rt

is n ot re qu ir e d, a s a

ma tte r o f l a w, to g rant the writ o r c on du c t a n in qu iry in to the allegations contained in the petition. See T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 9. If the pe tit ionfails on its fa c e to state a cogniza

ble claim, it may be summarily dismissed by the trial court. Se e Sta te e x . re l. B y rd v. Bomar , 381 S.W.2d 280, 283 (1964); T.C.A. § 29-21- 109. “If from the showing of the petitioner, the plaintiff would not be e ntitled to any relief, the writ may be r efuse d.” T.C.A. § 29-21- 109. A. Sufficiency of Indictme nts

On appea l, the Petitioner challenge s the sufficie ncy of both of his indictments, contending that both fail t o allege an “overt act.” Under some circ umstances, an indictment can be so defe ctive as to deprive a court of jurisdiction. Dykes v. Compton , 978 S.W.2d 528, 5 2 9 (Tenn. 1998) . The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constit ution and Article I , section 9 of the Tenne ssee Constit ution guara ntee the acc used the right to be informed of the “natur e and ca use of the ac cusation. ” Ou r Supreme Court ha s consistently interprete d this guarantee to require that an indictment: (1) provide notice to the acc used of the offense c harge d; (2) provide the court with an
a de qu a te gr ou ndup on wh ic h a pro pe r jud gme nt ma y be e nte re d; an d ( 3) pr ov ide the de fe nd a nt w ith protec tion against double jeopar dy. Sta te v . H ill , 9 54 S.W .2d 72 5 (Ten n. 19 97 ); see Hamling v. United States , 418 U.S. 87 (1974). Also, Tenne ssee statute r equire s the following:4

Th e ind ic tme nt mus t state the fa c ts c on sti tut ingthe of fe ns e in o rd ina

ry and c on c ise languag e, without prolix ity or re petition, in such a manner as to ena ble a pe rson of
c omm on un de rs ta nd ingto k

no w what is int e nd e d, and wi th that de g re e of c e rt a int y which will enable the cour t, on conviction, to pronounce the prope r judg ment . . . .

T.C.A. § 40-13-202 ( 2006).

1. Fe lon y M ur de rIndi c tm e nt
The Petitioner conte nds his indictment for felony murde r wa s insufficient be cause it failed to allege an “overt act.” I n Wy att v . S tat e , our Supreme Court c oncluded an indictment that identifies the offe nse, the victim, and the date of the offe nse against the victim accomplishes the three notice require ments of Hi ll . 24 S.W.3d 319, 323 (Tenn. 2000) . Also, in State v. Sledge , t h e C ourt specific ally ruled on whe ther the omission of the offe nse name is insufficie nt to identify the offe nse. 15 S.W .3 d 9 3, 94 (T e nn . 200 0)

. Th e Cou rt c on c lud e d tha t an ind ic tme nt a lle gin g th e de fe nd a nt “ did unlawfully ki ll [the victim ] during the pe rpetration of Aggravated Robbery, in violation of T.C.A. § 3 9- 13 -2 02" was su ffi c ie nt “ to p la c e the a c c us e d o n n oti c e of the c ha rg e d o ff e ns e ” be c aus e it contained a

specific ref

ere nce to the statute. Id

. The indi ctment at issue alleges under “SECOND COUNT” that the Petitioner “on Oc tober 8, 1995, . . . did unlawfully kill Charles Williamson during the perpetration of Especia lly Aggravated Robbery, in violation of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated 39-13- 202 against the pea ce and dignity of the State.” Section -202 ide ntifies felony murde r as a form of f irst d eg re e m u rd er and define s felony murder as is the “kill ing of another committed in the perpe tration of or attempt to perpetrate any . . . robbery . . . .” T.C.A. § 39-13- 202(a) (2) ( 1994).

W e c on c lud e that th e ind ic tme nt c ha rg ing the Pe tit ion e r with u nla wf ull y k ill ing the vic tim du ri ng the pe rp e tr a tio n o f e sp e c ia lly a gg ra vate d ro bb e ry wa s su ff ic ie nt to pr ov ide the Pe tit ion e r w ith notice of the char ged fe lony murder of fense , to pr ovide the court with an adequate basis upon which to enter a

judgment, and to protec t the Petitioner agai n s t d o uble jeopar dy. The indictment’s ref ere nce to the statut e d ef

ining felony murder , espec ially when couple d with the indictment’s de sc ri pti on of

the of fe ns e , w a s su ff

ic ie nt b othto not if

y the Pe tit ion e r of the c ha rg e d off e ns e a ndto p r o v id e a b a s is f

o r th e tria l c o u r t to e n te r a ju d gment. S l edge , 15 S.W.3d at 94. Further, the indictment protects the Petitioner a gainst double jeopar dy beca use, along with identifying the char ged off

ense, it identifies the date of the of fense

. Wy att , 24 S.W.3d at 3 2 3

. There fore , the Petitioner’s indictment was suff icient to provide th e co u rt with jurisdiction to enter a judgment against the Petitioner for first degre e fe lony murder. Id. ; Dykes, 978 S.W.2d at 529. The Petitioner is not entitl ed to re lief on this issue.

2. Espe c ial ly A gg r av at e d Ro bbe r y I ndic tm e nt

Th e Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s his ind ic tme nt f or e sp e c ia lly a gg ra vate d r ob be ry wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o5

give th e tria l c o u r t j u r is d ic ti o n to e n te r a c o n v ic ti o n f

o r a tt e mp te d e s p e c ia ll y a g g r a v a te d r obbery, beca use t he indi ctment di d not allege a n “overt act.” T he State ar gues the indictment is sufficie nt both because an attempt is a lesser-inc luded offe nse of a commission and be cause an indictment for an attempt nee d not allege a n overt a ct.
The indi ctment alleges the P etitioner “on October 8, 1995, . . . did unlawfully, intentionally, kn ow ing ly andvio le ntl y tak e mon e y fr om the pe rs on of Cha rl e s Wil lia mso n by the us e of a de a dly
wea pon , ca u s i ng serious bodily injury to Charles Williamson, in violation of Tennessee Code An no ta te d 3 9- 13 -4 03 , a ga ins t the pe a c e a nd dig nit y of the State .” Se c tio n - 40 3 d e fi ne s e sp e c ia lly
a g g r av ate d robbery as a r obbery “ acc omplished with a deadly we apon” and “whe re the victim suffers serious bodily injury.” T.C.A.§ 39-13-403 ( 1994). Although the Petitioner was initially in d i ct ed
a ndc on vic te d o f e sp e c ia lly a gg ra vate d r ob be ry , o n d ir e c t app e al this c on vic tio n w a s mo dif ie d to attempted espe cially aggr avate d robbery. See B locke r, 1999 WL 124223.

Rule 31 of the T ennesse e Rules of Criminal Procedur e provide s that a def endant may be
c on vic te d o f an at tem pt to com mit the of fe ns e c ha rg e d in his ind ic tme nt. Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 31(d)( 1)(B). The ref

ore, be cause the P etitioner’s indi ctment charged him with espec ially aggra vated robbery, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter a judgment of c onviction against the Petitioner for attempted espe cially aggr avate d. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 31(d)(1)( B). Thus, the Petitioner’s indictment for e specia lly aggravated robbe ry wa s sufficient both to place him on notice he would be pr osecute d fo r atte mpt e d e sp e c ia lly a gg ra vate d r ob be ry a nd to pr ov ide a ba sis up on wh ic h th e tr ia l c ou rt c ou ld enter judgment of conviction for attempted espe cially aggr avate d robbery.
We note that the Petitioner, corr ectly stating that a conviction for an attempt re quires proof of an ove rt ac t, incorre ctly contends that a n indictment for an attempted offe nse must allege a n overt act. As e xplained above , indictments in gener al need not allege an overt a ct. Sledge , 15 S.W.3d at 94 ; Wy att , 2 4 S. W .3 d at 32 3. Re fe re nc e to the statut e vio la te d a ndthe date of the of fe ns e is sufficie nt. Id . I nd ic tme nts su pp ortin g an att emp t convic tio n li ke wi se ne e d n ot a lle ge a sp e c if ic overt a ct. Wy att , 24 S.W. at 324-25. The introduction of proof of an overt a ct at trial is suffic ient to give t he court jurisdiction to enter a judgm ent of conviction. Id

. Her e, the indictment both re fer s to section -403, which pr oscribes the greater off ense of espec ially aggra vated r obbery, and allege s the date of the offe nse. We conclude the Petitioner’s indictment for e specia lly aggravated robbe ry wa s su ff ic ie nt t o p la c e the Pe tit io ner on no tic e of a tte mpt e d e sp e c ia lly a gg ra vate d r ob be ry , to provide the tria l court a ba sis upon which to enter a conviction for attempted espec ially aggra vated robbery, and to prote ct t h e P et i tioner fr om double jeopar dy. Hi ll , 24 S.W.3d at 323. Thus, the Petitioner’s indict m en t was suffic ient to give the trial court jurisdiction to enter its judgment of conviction for attempted espec ially aggra vated r obbery. Id. ; Dykes, 978 S.W.2d at 529. He is not entitled to relief on this issue.

C. Jur isdi c ti on t o Or de rCo nse c ut iveSe nt e nc ing

The Petitioner next c ontends the trial court erre d when it orde red his sente nces f or attempted espec ially aggra vated r obbery a nd felony murde r run c onsecutively

. I nh is p e tition for habea s corpus re lie f, the Pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt

didno t ha ve jurisd ic tio n to or de r c on se c uti ve te rm s beca use the off

enses oc curr ed within twenty-four hours of e ach othe r. The State re sponds, first, that6

the Pe tit ion e r w a ive d th is s e nte nc ing iss ue wh e n h e faile d in his brie f to su pp ort hi s p os iti on wi th argume nt or citation and, sec ond, that the sentenc es we re not illegal.

W he n a pe tit ion e r f

ile s a brie f w ith thi s Co urt, “ iss ue s w hic h a re no t su pp orte d b y a

rg ume nt, citation to authorities, or appropriate refer ence s to the record will be treated a s waived by this court.” Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b). In the c ase unde r submission, the Petit ioner alleged i n his petition that “[t]he Trial Court was w ithout authorit y t o s entenc e [the Petitioner] to consec utive terms.” Ho w e v e r , t h e P e t i t i o n e r

f a i l s t o s u p p o r tt h i s c o n t e n t i o n w i t h a r g u m e n t o r c i t a t i o n t o au t h o r i t i e s in the brief he filed w ith this Court. There fore , the issue is deeme d waived.
III. Conclusi on
After a thorough revie w of the rec ord and rele vant authorities, we conclude that the habe as court prope rly dismissed the Petiti oner’ s petition for habe as corpus relief

. Acc ordingly, we a ffirm the judgment of the ha

beas c ourt.

________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEY ER, JUDGE