FILED

August 14, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

FEBRUARY 1998 SESSION

HILTON G. JEFFERIES, )

) No. 03C01-9708-CC-00345

Appellant, )

) Bledsoe County

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

MICHAEL J. FAHEY, II

Assistant Attorney General

Cordell Hull Bldg., Second Floor

425 Fifth Avenue, North

Nashville, TN 37243-0490

JAMES MICHAEL TAYLOR

District Attorney General

JAMES W. POPE, III

Assistant District Attorney

265 Third Avenue, Suite 300

 Dayton, TN 37321

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED

WILLIAM B. ACREE, JR.

SPECIAL JUDGE
OPINION

The appellant, Hilton Glen Jefferies, appeals as of right the trial court’s

 dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. W e affirm the trial court.

The appellant was convicted of Aggravated Rape in 1987 and received a

sentence of 40 years. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of the Criminal

Appeals in 1989. The only issue raised by the appellant in his direct appeal was

that the sentence was excessive. See State v. Jefferies, (Tenn.Crim.App. 1989,

LEXIS 38).

The appellant later filed a petition for post conviction relief claiming

 ineffective counsel. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the dismissal was

affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Jefferies v. State, (No. 01C01-

9502-CC-00044, Tenn.Crim.App., filed July 6, 1995, at Nashville).

In the present petition, the appellant raises several issues. He complains

of (1) an improper sentence; (2) trial irregularities; (3) ineffective assistance of

counsel; and (4) errors in the indictment

As a general rule, the remedy of habeas corpus is limited to cases where

the judgm ent is void or the term of imprisonment has expired. Passarella v.

State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 626 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1994). The appellant does not

claim in his petition that the judgment is void or that the term of imprisonment has

expired. Therefore, the dismissal was proper. In addition, there are other

reasons why the dismissal of the petition should be affirmed.

The first issue presented for review is that the appellant’s sentence was 

improper and excessive. The appellant contends that his classification as a 

multiple offender was incorrect. This issue was decided adversely to the

appellant on direct appeal. A habeas corpus proceeding may not be employed to

raise and relitigate issues decided and disposed of in a direct appeal. Long v.

State, 510 S.W.2d 83, 87 (S.Ct. 1974). Furthermore, there is no appellate review

of a sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding. Lowe v. State, (No. 02-C-01-9309-

CR-00198 Tenn.Crim.App., filed October 19, 1994, at Jackson).

Appellant’s second issue concerns trial irregularities. He contends (1) he

and the victim were coached at trial and acted under duress; (2) a juror should

have been disqualified; and (3) the trial judge was guilty of misconduct. A
petition for writ of habeas corpus may not be used to review or correct errors of

law or fact committed by the trial judge in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and it

cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. 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 issue, he contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. 

Specifically, appellant states that his counsel (1) failed to present a video tape of

the victim recanting her testimony and (2) he instructed the appellant to lie at

perpetrator meetings and advised him to repeat this inform ation while at trial. A

claim of ineffective counsel may not be litigated in a habeas corpus proceeding. 

Passarella, 891 S.W.2d, at 628. In addition, this issue was raised by the

appellant in his petition for post-conviction relief and was decided adversely to

him. It may not be relitigated again.

In the final issue, the appellant complains of errors in the indictment. He

contends his name was misspelled in the indictment, the indictment was

inconsistent in that rape was listed as the charge on one page and aggravated

rape on the other, and that the indictment did not allege a culpable m ental state. 

The indictment is not in the record, and, therefore, we can not determ ine whether 

the appellant’s factual assertions are correct. However, even if they are, this

issue is without merit. The misspelling of the appellant’s name or a

typographical error in the indictment will not render the indictment void. 

Furthermore, defenses or objections based on defects in the indictment must be

raised by motion prior to trial. Rule 12 (b)(2) TRCrP. The contention that the

indictment did not allege a culpable mental state is based upon this Court’s

decision in State v. Roger Dale Hill, (No. O1C01-9508-CC-00267

(Tenn.Crim.App.), filed June 20, 1996, at Nashville). This decision was reversed

by the Supreme Court in State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn.1997).

For these reasons, the trial court’s dismissal of the petitions for writ of

habeas corpus is affirmed.

___________________________________

WILLIAM B. ACREE, JR., SPECIAL JUDGE

CONCUR:
___________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

____________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE