# FILED July 14, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRUARY SESS ION, 1998 DAVID MCDOWELL, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9707- CR-00278 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) MORGAN COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. E. EUGENE EBLEN CHARLES JONES, Warden, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Writ of Habeas Corpus)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : DAVID MCDOW ELL JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney Generaland Reporter #109129 M.C.R.C.F. TIMOTHY F. BEHAN P. O. Box 2000 Assistant Attorney General Wartburg, TN 37887-2000 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 CHARLES E. HAWK Distri ct Attorney General FRANK HARVEY Assistant Distri ct Attorney P. O. Box 703 Kingston, TN 37763
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE- 2
- 

## OPINION Appellant D avid McDo well was convicte d by a jury i n the Bradley C ounty Criminal Cour t ofaggravated r ape. As a Range I standard offender , he was sentenced to twent

y-twoyears incar

ceration with the Tennessee Department of Correction. This C ourt affirm ed the co nviction. State v. David McD owell , No. 251 BradleyCoun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Knoxville, Octobe r 23, 1986). On December 30, 1996, Appellan t fil ed an applicat ion for writ of habe as corpus in t he Morgan Coun ty Crim inal Court, allegi ng that he was bei ng ill egally r estrained on a convicti on and sentence bas ed upon a fatal ly defect ive indi ctment which failed to properly

set fort h a mens rea . The trial cou rt denie d the w rit on February 14, 1997. Appellant p resents the followi ng issue forour co nside ration in this ap peal: whethe r the trial cou rt erred in dis missing the petition for habe as corp us relief. After a review of

the record, we affirm the judg ment o f th e trial court pursuant to Cour

t of Cri minal Appeals Rule20. We find no merit in Appell ant's c ompl aint tha t the trial c ourt im prope rly denied his appli cation forwrit of habeas co rpus without co nducting an evidentiary hearing and witho ut appo inting cou nsel. "A full evidenti ary heari ng is not required forevery petition for habe as corp us." We atherly v. Sta te , 704 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). An ev id entiary hearing is

not warranted unless the petiti oneralleges fa cts adeq uately de mons trating the vo id charac te r of the proceedingswhich led to h is c onfinem ent. Id. (citi ng Russ ell v. Sta te ex re l. W illis , 437 S.W .2d 529 (Te nn. 1969)). The Bradley County

grand jury

indicted Appellant f

or aggra vated rape. According to Appellant's pet ition, the ind ictme nt alleg ed tha t Appe llant "did unlaw fully and feloni ously have sex ual penetra tion of. . . a child l ess than thi rteen (13) year s of age, c ontrary to th e statute,. . ."- 3
- Both the Sixth Amendment to t he United States Constitut ion and Article I, § 9 of the Tennessee Const ituti on afford t he accused the ri ght to be i nformed of the "nature and cause of the accu sation." Moreover, our legisl ature has prescribedthe contents of indi ctments. Tenn. CodeAnn. § 40-13-202 provides:

The indictme nt mus t state the fa cts constit uting theoffens e in ordinary and concise l anguage, without prolix ity or

repetit ion, in such a manner as to enabl e a person of common understandingto know what i s intended, and with th at degree of certainty wh ich will enab le the cou rt, on con viction, to pronounce the proper j udgment; and in n o c ase are such words as "force a nd arms" or "cont rary to th e form of the statute" necess ary. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-202. The Tenness ee Supreme Court's deci sion in State v. Hill governs the disposit ion of the case sub judice . 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). The Hill court held that: [F]or

offens es wh ich ne ither ex press ly requ ire nor p lainly dispense with the require men t for a cu lpable mental state, an in dictmentwhich fai ls to al lege such mental state will b e suffic ientto support p rosecution and convicti on f or that o ffense s o long as (1) th e lang uage of the in dictm ent is suffic ientto mee t the cons titutional requ iremen ts of notice to the accused of the c harge aga inst which the accused must defend, adequate basis for entry o f a proper j udgment, and protecti on from double jeopar dy; (2) t he form of the i ndictment meets the requir

ements ofTenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-202; and (3) the mental state can be logical ly inferred from the conduct alleged. Id. at 726-27. The indictment in the i nstant case comp orts with the requ iremen ts of Hill

. According ly, we affir m the tri al court' s judgment pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeal s Rule 20.

____________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE- 4
- CONCUR:

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL. J UDGE

___________________________________ WILLI AM B. A CREE, SPECI AL JUDGE