### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs a t K noxv ill e Ja nuary 24, 200 6
JOSEP H D . G AIN ES v. KEV IN M YER S, WAR DEN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Wayne County

No. 13756 Robert

Hollow ay, Judge

No. M2005- 01889-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Fe bruary 7, 2006

Th e pe tit ion e r a

pp e a ls the su mma

ry dis mis sa l of

his pe tit ion fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c orpu s. I n th is appea l, he asserts that the j udg ments are void beca use t he indi ctment was defec tive. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., delivere d the opi n i on of the c ourt, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

J oseph D. Ga ines, pro se.

Paul G

. Sum me rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r a nd Ra c he l E . Wil lis , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, K evin My ers, Warde n.
OP IN ION

On J uly 11, 2001, the petitioner pled g uiltyto two counts of ra pe of a child. Pursuant to a ple a a g re e me nt, the tr ia l c ou rt imp os e d c on c ur

re nt e ig hte e n- y e ar s e nte nc e s to be se rv e d at 10 0% in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. I n Aug ust of 2003, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus whic h was summarily dismiss ed. This c ourt aff irmed the dismiss al on appea l. See J oseph D. Gaine s v. Kevin My ers, Warde n, No. M2004-00725-CCA-R3-HC (T enn. Crim. Ap p ., at Nashville, Nov. 4, 2004), pe rm. app. de nied (Te nn. Fe b. 28, 2005). I n May of 2005, the petitioner filed a se cond petition for writ of habea s corpus. The trial court summarily dismiss ed.

I n this appeal of the dismiss al, the petitioner a sserts that t he judg ments are void because ea ch count of the indictment fails to alleg e the specific dates of the offe nses. He a lso asserts that the two counts alleg e only

one off ense.
The writ of habea s corpus is g uaranteed by Art i cle 1, se ction 15 of the Te nnessee Constit ution, whic h provides that "the privileg e of the writ of Habe as Corpus shall not be suspended,-2-

un le ss w he n in c a se of re be lli on or inv a sio n, the Ge ne ra l Asse mbl y sh a ll de c lare the pu bli c sa fe ty re qu ir e s it ." Te nn . Co ns t. a rt . I , § 15 . A lth ou g h th e wri t of habea s c or pu s is c on sti tut ion a lly g u ar a n t e e d , i th a s b e e n r e g u l a t e d b y s t a t u t e f o r m o r e t h a n o n e h u n d r e d ye ar s
. S e e U s s e r y v
. A v e r y, 432 S.W .2d 656, 657 (Tenn. 1968) . Our c urre nt code pr ovides that " [ a]ny person imprisoned or restra ined of liberty , under any prete nse whatsoeve r, except in c ases spe cified in § 29-21- 102, may prosec ute a writ of habea s corpus, to inquire into the ca use of suc h imprisonment and restraint." Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 21-101 (2003)

. Al tho ug h th e lang ua g e of the statut e is b ro a d, the c ou rt s o f this state ha ve lon g he ld that a writ of habe as cor

pus may be g rante d only

when the pe titioner has established a lack of jurisdiction for the or der of

confine ment or that he is other wi s e en t i t l ed to immediate rele ase be cause of the
e xpir a tio n of

his se nte nc e . Se e Us se ry , 4 32 S.W. 2da t 65 8; s e e a lso State e x re l. Wa de v. No rv e ll, 44 3 S. W.2 d 8 39 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 69 ). Unli ke the fe de ra l w ri t of ha be a s c or pu s, re lie f i s av ai l ab l e in t his state only when it appe ars on the f

ace of the judg ment or the re cord that the trial
cour t wa s without jurisdiction t o convict or se ntence the petitioner or that the sentenc e of imprisonment has otherwise e x pired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pott s v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). Unlike the post-conviction petition, whic h would aff ord a means of r elief f

or constitutional violations, such as the deprivatio n of the e ffe ctive assistanc e of
co u n s e l, th e p u rp o s e o f

th e h ab e a s c o rp u s p e ti ti o n is to c o n te s t a v o id , n o t m e r e ly

a v o id ab le , judgme nt. State ex re l. N ewsome v. Hende rson, 424 S.W .2d 186, 189 (Tenn. 1969) . A petitioner cannot attack a f

acially vali d co n v i ct i o n i n a habe as cor pus proce eding . Potts , 833 S.W .2d at 62; State ex rel. Holbrook v. B omar, 364 S.W.2d 887, 888 (Tenn. 1963). The policy

behind limiti ng habea s corpus relief to f acia lly void c onvictions is " g rounded on the strong presumption of validity that attache s to final j udg ments of courts of g ener al jurisdiction." State v. Ritchie, 20 S

. W

. 3 d 6 2 4 , 6 3 0 (Tenn. 2000) . I n Ritchie, our supreme court re iterate d the limit ed natur e of ha

beas c orpus re lief:

I n all case s w he re a

pe tit ion e r mus t in tr od uc e pr oo f b e y on d th e re c or d to
e sta bli sh the inv a lid ity of his c on vic tio n, the n tha t c on vic tio n by de fi nit ion is m e re ly voidable, and a

Tenne ssee c ourt ca n n o t issue the writ of habe as cor pus under suc h
c ir c ums ta nc e s. Un lik e the pr oc e du re s g ov e rn ing the a va ila bil ity of the fe de ra l w ri t of ha be a s c or pu s, ou r p ro c e du re s d o not c on te mpl a te that a pe tit ion e r m a y

re lit itg a te fac ts in a habeas corpus proce eding

. Be cause a conviction is either void on its face for want of jurisdiction, or it is not, the nee d for a n evidentiary hearing in a

habea s corpus pr ocee ding should ra rely arise . . . .

I d. at 633.

Ge ne ra lly , d e fe ns e s b a se d u po n i nd ict ment de fi c ie nc ie s mu st b e pr e se nte d p ri or to t ri a l. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) a nd (f) . A valid indictment is essential to prosecution, howe ver, and may be subject to attack at any time w hen the content does not c harg e an offe nse o r d o es n o t co nfer-3-

jurisdiction. Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W .2d 528 (Tenn. 1998). A c riminal indictment must i nclude a suff icient desc ription of the offe nse t o ensure that the def endant unde rstands the nature of the char g e. Jackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 314 ( 1979). The e ssential functions of the indictment
are to pr ovide notice of the c harg e, ena ble entry of a pr oper judg ment upon conviction, and pr otect ag ainst double jeopar dy . State v. By rd, 820 S.W.2d 739, 741 (Tenn. 1991) . Tenne ssee Code An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 13 -2 02 , p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s:
The indictment must state the fa cts constituting the offe nse in ordinary and
conc is e lan g u a g e , w ith o u t p r o li xity o r r e p e ti ti o n , in s u c h a man n e r a s to e n ab le a person of common understanding to know what is intended, a nd with that deg ree of cert ai n t y which will enable the court, on conviction, to pronouncethe prope r judgme nt . . . . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 13-202 (2003)

. I t is well-e stablished that "the exact date, or even the y ear , of an offense need not be stated in an indictment or pr esentment unless the date or time ' is a materia l ingr edient in the off

ense.' " B yrd, 820 S.W.2d at 740 (quoting Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-13- 207).

I n this case, the indictment char g ed that " on a day betwee n the 1st day

of September , 1999,
an d t h e 4 t h d ayo f D ec em b er , 1 9 9 9 " t h e p et i t i o n er"d i d i n t en t i o n al l y , k n o wi n gl y , o r r eckle ssly engage in unlawful sexual penetration of [t he victim], a child less than thirte en (1 3 ) y ea rs of ag e." The ind ic tme nt a lso c on ta ins a c it a tio n to the app lic able statut e . O ur su pr e me c ou rt

ha s sp e c if

ic a lly approve d of indictments almost identical to the one at i ssue. See S tate v. Shelton, 851 S.W .2d 134, 137 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) ; State v. Brow n, 823 S.W .2d 576, 581 (Tenn. Crim App. 1991). Our hig h c ou rt ha s a lso app ro ve d a n in dic tme nt wh ic h ch arg e d ra pe of a c hil d les s th a n th irte e n y e ars old and conta ined no date at all, observing that "in or der t o es t abli sh the leg al suffic iency of that char g ing instrument, the state nee d alleg e only that the offe nse was committed prior to the finding of the indi c tm e n t o r p r e s e n tm e n t. " B yr d , 8 2 0 S. W. 2 d a t 7 4 0

. I n o u r v ie w , th e lan g u a g e in eac h
c ou nt of the ind ic tme nt w a s su ff ic ie nt t o a pp ri sethe pe tit ion e r o f the nature of the c ha rg e s a g a ins t him, to enable the e ntry of a pr oper judg ment, and to protect ag ainst double jeopar dy . The indictment made refer ence to the applicable s tatute, i dentified the victim, and alleg ed the e ssential elements of the crime.

Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRES I DING JUDGE