### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 20, 200 5

JOEY L EE SM ITH v. K EVIN MY ERS , WA RD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Wayne County

No. 13698 Stella Hargrove , Judge

No. M2005- 01732-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Janu ary 18, 2006

Th e pe titio ner, J oey L e e Smith, app e a ls f ro m th e c ir c uit

c ou rt ’s su mma

ry dis mis sa l of

his pro s e petition for writ of habea s corpus. Following our revie w of the parties’ briefs and applica ble law,
we a ffirm the c ourt’s dismissal of the petition.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

J oey L ee Smith, T.D.O.C.. Clifton, Tennessee , Pro Se.

Pau l G

. Su mm e r s , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d Re p o r te r ; B r e n t C. Ch e rr y , A s s is tan t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; W. Michae l McCown, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

I n Marc h 1995, the petitioner wa s convicted of one co u n t o f child rape , six counts of
a g g ra vat e d s e xu a l b a t t e r y , o n e c o u n to f s e xu a l b a t t e r y , a n d t w o c o u n t s o f r e c k l e s s e n d a n g e r m e n t. He r ece iv ed a t o t al effective se ntence of ninetee n y ear s. His convictions were aff irmed on direc t appea l, and he wa s denied post-c onviction relief. See Sta te v . J oey Le e Sm ith , No. 01C01-9603-CC-00108 , 1 9 9 7 W L438165 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, J uly 31, 1997) perm. app. denied (T e nn . M arc h 1 6, 19 98 ); J oey Le e Sm ith v . S tat e , No. M 1999-01896-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 363990 ( Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, April 12, 2001). I n J anuary 2005, the petitioner filed
a pro s e pet i t i o n fo r writ of habea s corpus. The circ uit court dismissed the petition, finding no g rounds entitling the pe titioner to habea s corpus re lief.

I n his petition and on a

ppeal, the pe titioner alleg es that he w as indicted for simple rape and convicted of

simple r ape; but the trial court imprope rly modified his judgment to re flec t a conviction-2-

for c hild rape. H e esse ntially arg ues t hat hi s conviction for child rape is void beca use t he trial c ourt lacke d jurisdiction to modi fy this conviction.

Article I , section 15 of the T ennesse e Constituti on g uarantees the rig ht to seek habe as cor pus
re lie f. Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio ns 29 -2 1- 10 1 th ro ug h 2 9- 21 -1 30 c od if y the app lic able proce dures f

or see king a

writ. The g rounds upon which a writ of habe as cor pus may be issued ar e very narr ow. McLan ey v . B e ll , 59 S.W.3 d 9 0, 92 (T e nn . 2 00 1) . A writ o f h abe a s c or pu s is a va ila

ble only when it appears on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re cord of the proc eeding s upon which the judgme nt was re ndere d that a court was without jurisdiction to c onvict or sentenc e the de fendant or that the def

endant is still im prisoned despite the expira t i on of his sentenc e. Arc he r v . S tat e , 851 S.W. 2d15 7, 16 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) ; Po tts v . S tat e , 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). The pur pose of a habea s corpus petition is to c ontest void and not merely voidable judg ments. Archer , 851 S.W .2d at 163. A void judg ment is a fac ially invalid judgment, c lear ly s h o wing that a court did not have statutory authority to rende r such judg ment; whe re a s, a voidable judg ment is facia lly valid, requiring proof bey ond the face of the record or judgme nt to establish its invalidity

. See Tay lor v . S tat e , 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). The bur den is on the petitioner to esta blish, bya pre ponderance of the evidenc e, “that the sentenc e is void or that the conf inement is illega l.” W

y a t t v . S tat e , 2 4 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). Moreove r, it is permissible for a court to summ arily dismiss a petition for habea s corpus re lief, without the appointment of counsel and without an evide ntiary hearing, if

the petitioner does not state a

cog nizable claim. See Hi c k ma n v . S tat e , 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004)

.
For an indictment to be cha lleng ed in a ha beas c orpus proc eeding , the indictm en t m u s t be so defe ctive that it fails to vest jurisdiction in the convicting court. See W y att , 24 S.W .3d at 323. The United States and the Tenne ssee Constit utions re quire that an indictment inf orm the acc used of “ the nature and ca

use of the acc usation.” U.S. Const. amend. VI ; Tenn. Const. Art. I , § 9. An indictment
sa tis fi e s th e c on sti tut ion a l r e qu ir e me nt o f n oti c e “ if it pr ov ide s su ff ic ie nt inf orma tio n (1 ) t o e na

ble t h e a c c u s e d t o k n o w t h e a c c u s a t i o n t o w h i c h a n s w e r i s r e q u i r e d , ( 2 ) t o f

u r n i s h t h e c o u r ta d e q u a te basis for the entry of a proper judgme nt, and (3) to protec t the accused from double j eopar dy .” Sta te
v . H ill , 9 54 S.W. 2d

72 5, 72 7 ( Te nn . 1 99 7)

. F urthe r, the ind ic tme nt mus t state the fa c ts o f the of fe ns e in ordinary

and conc ise lang uag e. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-202. Indictments patterne d afte r the pertinent lang uag e of a n applicable statute are ordinarily su f f ic ie n t f o r c o n s ti tutional a nd statutory purposes. See State v . Hammonds , 30 S.W .3d 294, 302 (Tenn. 2000)

. Upon re view of the rec ord, we conclude that the petitioner is not entitled to habea s corpus relief . First, the r ecor d ref lects that the pe titioner’s indictment proper ly char g ed him with the ra

pe of a c hil d. Th e ind ic tme nt s ta te s in pe rt ine nt p a rt that “ JOEY LEE SMI TH

. . . d id e ng a g e in unlawful sexual penetr ation of [victim] , ag e 11, and force or coercion was used to ac complish the act, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 39-13-503 [ sic]

. . . .” Pursuant to Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 39-13-522, rape of a c hild is “the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the de fe nd a nt or the de fe nd a nt by a vic tim , if su c h v ic tim

is l e ss tha n th irte e n ( 13 ) y e ars of a g e .” Whil e the petitioner’s indictment incor rec tly ref ere nced the wrong cod e p ro v i s i on, the lang uag e of the indictment clearly

meets the e lements of child ra pe as se t forth in section 39-13- 522. As such, the inclusion of the wrong code pr ovision in t he indictment is clea rly surplusag e. I t is well-settled that-3-

an indictment is not defec tive beca use of the inc lusion of s u rpl usag e if, a fter e liminating the surplusag e, the offe nse i s still sufficie ntly char g ed. Sta te v . Cu lp , 8 91 S.W. 2d23 2, 23 6 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ); see also State v. B eal , 614 S.W .2d 77, 80 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981) (dete rmining that t h e insertion of w rong code pr ovision did not rende r the indictment invalid); Mc Cra c k e n v . S tate , 48 9 S. W.2 d 4 8, 51 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ) (s ta tin g that th e pr e se ntm e nt’ s e rr on e ou s r e fe re nc e to
wr on g c od e se c tio n wa s cle ri c a l er ro r an d thus me re su rp lus a g e ). I n this c a se , th e ind ic tme nt c le arl y informed the pe titioner o f t h e crime for w hich he wa s char g ed. F urthermor e, both the jury instructions and the jury verdic t clea rly indicate that the jury

was instructe d and found the petitioner g uiltyof child ra

pe. The ref

ore, the trial court’ s corr ection of the judgme nt form, which ha d been mista k en l y re co rded as simple rape, w as mere ly the authorized cor

rec tion of a cle rica l error

. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36 (stating that clerical mi stakes in judgme nts arising from oversight or omissi on may be cor rec ted by the court at any time). Clerical error s do not give rise to void judgme nts. See Mc Chr ist ian v . S tat e , 159 S.W .3d 608, 610 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) . Acc ording ly , the petitioner faile d to state a cogni z able c la im f or ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f, a ndthe c ir c uit c ou rt didno t e rr

in summarily

dismiss ing his pe tition. The judgment of the circ uit court is affirmed.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE