# FILED
August 14, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRUA RY 199 8 SESSI ON

HILTON G. JEFF ERIES, ) ) No. 03C01-9708-CC-00345 Appe llant, ) ) Bledso e Cou nty vs. ) ) Honorable Thomas W. Graham ) Judge JAMES A. BOWLEN, WARDEN ) AND STATE OF TENNESSEE , ) (Habeas Corpus) ) Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: PRO SE JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney General& Reporter MICH AEL J . FAHE Y, II Assistant Attorney General Cordell HullBldg., Second Fl oor 425 Fifth Avenu e, North Nashvill e, TN 37243-0490 JAMES MI CHAEL TAY LOR Distri ct Attorney General JAME S W . POP E, III Assistant Distri ct Attorney 265 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Dayton, TN 37321 OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED
WILLIAM B.ACREE, J R. SPECI AL JUDGEOPINI ON

The appe llant, Hilto n Gle n Jeffe ries, ap peals as of rig ht the tria l court’s dismiss al of his pe tition for writ of ha beas c orpus. W e affirm the trial court. The appellant was convicted of Aggravated Rape in 1987 and received a sentence of 40 years. His convictionwas affirmed by the Court of the Criminal Appeals in 1989. The only issue raised by t he appellant in his di rect appeal was that the s entence was excessive. See State v. Jefferi es , (Tenn.Cri m.App. 1989, LEXIS 3 8). The appellant l ater fi led a peti tion for post convi ction rel ief cl aiming ineffec tive counsel . The tri al court di smissed the petition, and the dismissalwas affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal s. See Jefferies v. S tate , (No. 01C01- 9502-CC -00044, T enn.Crim .App., filed July 6, 1995 , at Nashville). In the present

petiti on, the appel lant rai ses several issues. He complai ns of (1) an i mproper sentence; (2) tri al irr egularit ies; (3)ineffec tive assi stance of counsel; and (4) errors in the i ndictment As a gene ral rule, the remed y of habeas c orpus is limited to ca ses where the judgm ent is void o r the term of impriso nmen t has exp ired. Passarella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 626 (Tenn.Cr im.App. 1994). The appellant does not claim in hi s petiti on that the judgment is void or that the term of i mprisonment has expired. Therefore, the dismissal was proper. I n additi on, there ar e other reasons why the di smissal of t he petiti on should be aff irmed. The first issue presented f or review is t hat the appellant’ s sentence was improper and excess ive. The appel lant contends that hi s classificatio n as a multipl e offender was i ncorrect. This issue was deci ded adversely to the appellan t on direct a ppeal. A habea s corpu s proce eding m ay not be emplo yed to raise and relitigate issu es dec ided an d dispos ed of in a d irect appe al. Long v. State , 510 S.W.2d 83, 87 (S.Ct . 1974). Fur thermore, t here is no appel late rev iew of a sente nce in a h abeas corpus procee ding. Lowe v. S tate , (No. 02-C-0 1-9309- CR-001 98 Tenn .Crim.App ., filed October 19, 19 94, at Jackso n). Appellant’ s second issue concerns trialirregul ariti es. He contends (1)he and th e victim were c oach ed at tria l and a cted u nder d uress ; (2) a jur or sho uld have be en disqu alified; and (3) the trial judg e was g uilty of misco nduct. Apetiti on for wri t of habeas corpus may not be used to r eview or cor rect err

ors of law or fa ct com mitted by the tr ial judg e in the exercis e of its jur isdictio n, and it canno t be used as a sub stitute for an appea l. State v. Henderson , 640 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1982). These issues should have been raised on direct appeal and may not be raised by habeas corpus.
In the third iss ue, he co ntends that his trial co unsel w as ineffec tive. Specifical ly, appel lant states that h is counsel ( 1) fail ed to present a video tape of the vict im recanti ng her testi mony and (2) he inst ructed the appe llant t o lie at perpetra tor mee tings and advised him to rep eat this inform ation wh ile at trial. A claim of in effective co unsel m ay not be litigated in a h abeas corpus procee ding. Pass arella , 891 S.W.2d, at 628. In addit ion, thi s issue was rai sed by the appellan t in his petition fo r post-co nviction relief a nd was decided adverse ly to him. It may not be relitigated agai n.
In t he fi nal i ssue, the a ppel lant compl ainsof er rors

in t he in dict ment. He contends his name was misspe lled i n the indi ctment, the indict ment was inconsistent in that rape was li sted as the char ge on one page and aggravated rape on the other , and that th e indictm ent did no t allege a c ulpable m ental state

. The indictm ent is not in the record , and, therefore, we can not determ ine whether the ap pellan t’s factu al asse rtions a re corr ect. Ho weve r, even if they are , this issue is without m erit. The missp elling of the appellant’s n ame or a typograp hical error in the indictm ent will not re nder the indictme nt void. Furthermore, defenses or obj ections based on d efects i n the indi ctment must be raised by moti on prior to trial . Rule 12 (b) (2) TRCrP. The content ion that the indictm ent did not alle ge a c ulpab le me ntal sta te is ba sed u pon th is Cou rt’s decision i n State v. Rog er Da le Hill , (No. O1C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn.Crim.App.) , fil ed June 20, 1996, at Nashvill e). This deci sion was rever sed by the Supreme Court i n State v. Hill , 954 S.W .2d 725 (Te nn.1997).
For these reasons , the trial court’s dismissa l of the petiti ons for wri t of habeas corpus is af

firmed.

___________________________________

WILLI AM B. A CREE, JR., SPECI AL JUDGE

CONCUR:___________________________________

JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

____________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE