IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs January 10, 2012

VINCENT D. HADLEY v. HENRY STEWARD, WARDEN

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County

No. 6500 Joseph H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2011-01750-CCA-R3-HC - Filed July 2, 2012

Petitioner, Vincent D. Hadley, appealsfrom the trial court’s summary dismissal of the habeas

corpus petition filed by Petitioner. Petitioner asserts on appeal that the indictment, which

resulted in his guilty plea to felony murder in 1994, is defective and that the judgment is

void. After reviewing the briefs of the parties and the entire record on appeal, we affirm the

judgment of the habeas corpus court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of

Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right;

Judgment of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court Affirmed

Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JOHN EVERETT

WILLIAMS and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined.

Vincent D. Hadley, Henning, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Assistant Attorney

General; and D. Michael Dunavant, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of

Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The indictment returned by the Shelby County Grand Jury in Petitioner’s case alleges

in pertinent part,

. . . that: VINCENT D. HADLEY, on August 6, 1993, in Shelby County,

Tennessee, and before the finding of thisindictment, did unlawfully kill [the
victim] a child under the age of thirteen (13) years of age, the death of the

said child having resulted from Aggravated Child Abuse, as defined by

Section 39-15-402, committed by the aforementioned, Vincent D. Hadley

against the said [victim], in violation of T.C.A. § 39-13-202, against the

peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

In his pro se brief, Petitioner generally asserts that the indictment fails to allege all the

elements of felony murder, and fails to state facts and circumstances sufficient “to constitute

the crime of murder.” Petitioner also reincorporates in his brief the arguments of law alleged

in his petition for habeas corpus relief. While definitely not approving of this method for

presenting an argument on appeal, we do note that the essence of his argument in the petition

concerning the alleged deficiency of the indictment is that the indictment failed to allege the

appropriate mens rea of “recklessly” as to felony murder. Even if that mens rea was a

necessary element at the time of the offense, the indictment was not defective for failing to

allege that Petitioner acted “recklessly.” In State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145 (Tenn. 1999),

the defendant was convicted of felony murder when that offense’s definition included as an

element a reckless killing of another person in the perpetration of a statutorily specified

felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2)(1991). The indictment, just like the

indictment in Petitioner’s case, failed to allege “recklessly” or any other mental state. The

supreme court in Carter rejected the defendant’s argument that the indictment was deficient

“for failing to allege the appropriate mental state of recklessness.” Carter, 988 S.W.2d at

148. Specifically, our supreme court stated,

This Court has relaxed the strict pleading requirements of common law as

noted in State v. Ruff, 978 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tenn. 1998), by holding that an

indictment which includes a reference to the criminal statute that sets forth

the mens rea is sufficient to give a defendant notice of the applicable mental

state.

Carter, 988 S.W.2d at 148.

The indictment in Petitioner’s case alleged the correct applicable statutes. The

indictment is sufficient. The judgment is not void. Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this

appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court was in a proceeding without a jury, it was not a

determination of guilt, the evidence does not preponderate against the finding of the trial

court, and no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is apparent on the record.

-2-
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed by memorandum opinion pursuant

to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

_________________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

-3-