T h e re c o rd c o n ta ins o n ly t h e R u the rfo rd C o u n ty ju d g m e n t. 1 

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

AT NAS HVILLE

JEFF REY M. HOD GES v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wayne County No. 13340 JimT. Hamilton, Judge

No. M2004- 00871-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Novem ber 12, 2004

The Petitioner, Jeffre y M. Hodg es, appe als from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habea s corpus. The State has filed a mot ion reque sting that the Court a ffirm the tria l court’s de nial of re lief pu rs ua nt to Rul e 20 , Rul e s of the Cou rt of Cr imi na l Ap pe a ls. We fi ndthe Sta te ’s mot ion ha s me ri t. Acc ording ly , the motion is gra nted and the a ppeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D A VI D H. W EL L ES , and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J , joined.

J eff rey M. Hodg es, pro se , Clifton, Tennessee

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Helena Walton Yar broug h, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On July 7, 19 94 , th e Pe tit ion e r p le d g uil ty be fo re the Ruthe rf

or d Cou nty Cr imi na l Co urt to
on e c ou nt o f a g g ra vate d bu rg lary
. Pe tit ion e r re c e ive d a fo ur y e ar se nte nc e to ru n c on se c uti ve wi th th e fol lo wi ng sen ten ces: W hi te C ou nt y , case n um ber 9 3-5 0; Co ffee C ou nt y , cas e nu mb er 25 92 4-F; and Da vidson County , case number 93-B -523

. 1

On Janu ary

2, 20 04 , th e Pe tit ion e r f

ile d, pr o se, a

pe tit ionfo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f i n the Way ne County

Circuit Court. He asser

ted that the trial court lac ked jurisdiction to hold a hearing beca use the Petitioner’s indictment is insufficient, resulting in a void conviction. On F ebrua ry 19,-2-

2004, the trial court issued an orde r dismiss ing the Petitioner’s application for habea s corpus re lief. The Petitioner filed his notice of appea l in the trial court on April 3, 2004.

The g rounds upon which a writ of habe as cor pus may be issued ar e very

narr ow. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only when it appe ars fr om the fa c e of the jud g me nt or re c or d tha t eith e r the c on vic tin g c ou rt wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n to convict or se ntence the p et i t i o n er , or the pe titioner’s sentenc e has e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W. 2d15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v. Sta te , 8 33 S.W. 2d 60 , 6 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 2) . In o the r w or ds , habea s corpus re lief may

only be soug ht when the judg ment is void, not mere ly voidable. Ta y lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. The Petitioner alleg es that the trial c ourt l ac k ed j urisdiction to convict him because of a de fe c tiv e ind ic tme nt. Spe c if ic a lly , th e Pe tit ion e r c la ims the ind ic tme nt i s d e fe c tiv e be c a us e it f a ils to sufficiently ch arg e the of fense and to state fa cts to show the spec ific off ense. I f prove n, a de fe c tiv e ind ic tme nt i s a n a pp ro pria te iss ue to be br ou g ht in a habe a s cor pu s pet iti on . See Wy a tt
v. State , 2 4 S. W.3 d 3 19 (T e nn . 2 00 0) . T he ind ic tme nt i n th e app e llate re c or d r e a ds a s f oll ow s:
The Gr and Jurors for t h e S tate of Te nnessee , duly elec ted, impaneled, sw orn, and char g e d to in q u ir e f

o r th e b o d y o f th e Co u n ty

o f Ru th e r f o r d , a n d St a te a f

oresa id, upon their oaths pre sent, that on the __ day of November, 1992, in s aid County and State and bef

ore the finding of this indi ctment one . . . Jeff Hodg e did unlawf ully and feloniously

enter the habitation o f . . . Daniel, without the effe ctive conse nt of the pr op e rty ow ne r, the sa id h abit a tio n n ot being op e n to the pu bli c wi th the int e nt t o commit theft or a f

elony . . . there in, in violation of T.C.A. 39-14-401, et. seq., ag ainst the pea ce and dignity of the State of T ennesse e.
SECOND COUNT: And the Gr and J urors afore said, upon their oaths a fore said, do further prese nt, that on the day

and date afor esaid, in the Countyand State af oresa id, and bef ore the finding of this indictment, the said . . . J eff Hodg e did unlawf

ully and kn ow ing ly

ob ta in o r e xer c ise c on tr ol o ve r the pr op e rt y of .

. . Da nie l, the sa id property being . . . and being of the va lue of over $10,000.00 dollars wit h the intent to d e prive the true ow ne r the re of , a ndwi tho ut the owner’s effe c tiv e c on se nt, in violation of T.C.A. 39-14-103, a g ainst the pea ce an d dignity of the State of Tenne ssee.
Th e Te nn e sse e Sup re me Cou rt ha s he ld that, fo r c on sti tut ion a l pu rp os e s, “ a n in dic tme nt i s valid if it provides sufficie nt information (1) to e nable the a ccuse d to know the ac cusation to which
answe r is require d, (2) to furnish t he court adequate basis for the entry of a pr oper judg ment, and (3) to protect the a ccuse d from double jeopa rdy .” State v. Hill, 954 S.W .2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 1997)

. Further, the indictment must meet the statutory require ments of Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40 -1 3- 10 2, wh ic h p ro vid e s:-3-

Th e ind ic tme nt mus t sta te the fa c ts co ns tituti ng the of fe ns e in or din ary

a ndc on c ise lang uag e, without prolix ity or re petition, in such a manner as t o enable a person of
c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o k n o w w h a ti s i n t e n d e d , a n d w i t h t h a td e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y, which will enable the court, on c onviction, to pronounce the proper judgme nt; and in no case are such words a s ‘forc e and a rms’ or ‘ contra

ry to the form of the statute’
nece ssary .”

I n revie wi n g t h e indictment in this case, it meets both the c onstitut ional and statutory require ments. The indictment states the a ccusation to which the P etitioner was require d to answer
a nddo e s th is i n o rd ina

ry la ng ua g e so that a pe rs on of c omm on un de rs ta nd ing kn ow s w hat is int e nd e d. F urthe r, the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Cou rt ha s h e ld that an ind ic tme nt ma y re fe r to the statut e that define s the offe nse and that indictment is sufficient and satisfies a ll constitut ional and statutory require ments. See S tate v. Sledge , 15 S.W .3d 93, 95 (2000); see also Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tenn. 1998)

. The Petitioner has f

ailed to establish by

a pre ponderance of

the evidenc e that his conviction is void or his term of imprisonment has ex pired. Acc ording 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 Ap pe a ls.

___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE