# FILED March 25, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE JANUARY 1998 SESSION NELSON B. GRAVES, ) ) Ap pe llan t, ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00171

) vs. ) Jo hn so n C ou nty ) HOWARD CARLTON, WARDEN, ) Hon. Lynn W. Brown, Judge AND STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) (Habeas C

orpus) Appellees. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: NELSON B. GRAVES JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attor ney General and Reporter N.E .C. C. P.O. Box 5000 SANDY COPOUS PATRICK M ou nta in C ity, T N 37 68 3 Assist ant Att orney General 2d Floor Cordel l Hull Bldg. 42 5 F ifth A ve . N orth Nashvill e, TN 37243-0943 DAVID E. CROCKETT Distr ict Attor ney General Rt. 19, Box 99 Johnson City, TN 37601

OPINION FILED:__________________ AFFIRMED CURWOOD WITT, JU DGE1 The indictments included i n the record consist of one c harge of criminal conduct in 1977 and five charges of criminal conduct i n 1980. Matching the indictments with the judg ment forms attached to the pl eadings Graves filed in the court below, we infer that his complaint relates to four of the indictments f or the 1980 crimes. OPINION

The petit ioner, Nelson B. Graves, appeals t he Johnso n C ou nt y C rim ina l C ou rt's s um m ary de nia l of h is p etitio n fo r the w rit of h ab ea s c orp us . Ac co rdin g to his pe tition, Graves i s pre se ntly serving an eff ecti ve

55 y ear in carc erative sen tenc e follow ing h is con viction s of th ree co un ts of aggravated r ape and one

co un t of a gg rav ate d k idn ap pin g. See also State v. Nelson B. Graves , No. 744, slip op . at 1 (T en n. C rim . Ap p., K no xv ille, D ec . 10 , 19 81 ), p erm . app. denied(T

en n. 1 98 2). It app ears tha t he co m m itted his crim es in 1 98 0. 1 Grave s alleg es th e co urt be low err on eo us ly fa iled to issuethe w rit o f ha be as co rpu s, to w hic h h e c laim s en title ment because (1) t he dist ri ct at torney ge ne ra l's signatur e is l acking fr om som e of the chargi ng instr uments, and (2) the i ndictments against him fail to alle ge a c ulp ab le mens rea

. Having r eviewed the r ecords and the ar guments of the pe tition er a nd the sta te, w e a ffirm the tria l co urt 's d ism iss al o f Grav es 's p etitio n.
We begin ou r an aly sis w ith r ec itatio n o f R ule 12 (b) (2) , Te nn es se e R ule s o f C rim ina l Pr oc ed ure . Any de fen se , ob jec tion, or r eq ue st w hic h is ca pa ble of d ete rm ina tion w itho ut the t ri al of the general issue may

be raised bef ore tr ial by

m otio n. M otio ns m ay be w ritten or ora l at th e d isc retio n o f the trial ju dg e. T he follo w ing m us t be rais ed prio r to tr ial.

. . . Defenses an d o bje cti ons based on defect s in t he indi ctment, presentment or inform ati on (othe r than that it fails to s

how jurisdic tion in th e co urt or to cha rge a n off ens e w hic h o bje ctio ns sh all b e n otic ed by the co urt a t an y tim e d urin g th e pe nd en cy of th e p roc ee din gs )[.] Tenn. R. Crim

. P. 12 (b)(2) . Ob jection s no t m ade in ac cord anc e w ith the tim e fram e of rul e 12(b)( 2) are w aive d. Te nn. R . Crim . P. 12 (f).
The absence

of the attorn ey g ene ral's sign ature on a n ind ictm ent is n either nec ess ary for a showing of j uri sdict ion nor forthe chargi ng of an offe ns e. T hu s, u nd er R ule 12 (b) (2) , an ob jec tion to a de fect of this nat ure must be m ade pre-tr ial , and not i n a collat eral, post-t rial habeas c orpu s3

peti ti on. John C. Tomlinsonv. Howard Carlt on , N o. 0 3C 01 -96 10 -C R -00 38 9, s lip o p. a t 5 ( Te nn. C rim
. App., Kn ox ville , O ct. 2 , 19 97 ), pe t. for pe rm ap p. file d (Tenn., Oct. 31, 19

97 ); see also State v. Anthony Nixon , No. 02C01-9612-CC-00484, sli p op. at4 (Tenn. Cri m. App., Jackson, Dec. 3, 1997) (de fec ts "that g o to m atters of form

rat he r th an su bs tan ce " m us t be rai se d p re- tria l or they are wai ved pursuantto R

ule 12 ), pe t. for pe rm . ap p. file d (Tenn., Jan. 20

, 19 98 ). In his brie f, Graves concedes no such object ion was

m ad e " du ring the co urs e o f his tria l." T he iss ue w as w aiv ed w he n it w as no t raised pre- tri al, and it i s not properl y before us now.

Graves als o cl aim

s e ntitle m en t to t he w rit o f ha be as co rpu s b as ed up on alle ge d defi cienci es

in th e in dic tm en ts in failing to a llege a culp able m enta l state. H e ba ses his a rgum ent on the pro vis ion s o f C od e s ec tion s 3 9-1 1-3 01 an d 3 9-1 1-3 02 . T ho se pro vis ions r equi re a

cu lpa ble mental sta te fo r th e c om m iss ion of a crim ina l offe ns e a nd de fine th e four cul pable mental stat es appli cable t o viol ati ons of t he 19 89 C rim ina l C od e. H e s up po rts his arg um en t by cita tion to State v. Roger D ale Hill, Sr ., N o. 0 1C 01 -95 08 -C C -00 26 7 (T en n. C rim
. App., Nashvi ll e, June

20 , 19 96 ), re v'd , 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997), and Sta te v . N ath an iel W hite , No. 03 C 01 -94 08 -C R -00 27 7 (T en n. C rim
. Ap p., Kn oxv ille, June 7, 19 95).
The falla cy in G rav es 's a rgu m en t is th at, u nlik e th e d efe nd an ts in Hill and W

hite , his cri mes were comm

it ted i n 1980, l ong before t he enactment of t he 1989 C ri minal Cod e. The touchst one

of t he now-reversed H ill decisi on and W hite is s ec tion 39 -11 -30 1. See Roge r Da l e Hi l l , slip op . at 5 (co urt of c rim ina l ap pe als2 The three aggravated rape indi ctments upon which Graves was

convicted alleged fellatio , cunnilingus, and sexual i ntercourse, each allegation being contained in a separate i ndictment. 4 opin ion); N ath an iel W hite , slip op . at 4 . T he crim ina l law at t he ti me of

Grav es 's c rim es did no t co nta in an analogous pro vis ion
. See, e.g. , Ca

rl E. Saine v. Alton Hesson , No. 02C01-9710-CC-00399 (Tenn. C rim
. App., Jackson, Dec. 15, 1997) ( Rule 20 O rde r), pet. for perm. app. f il ed

(Te nn., D ec. 2 9, 19 97); Harvey Quallsv. Bil ly Com

pton , N o. 0 2C 01 -96 10 -C C -03 31 , slip op . at 4 , n.2 (T en n. C rim . Ap p., Ja ck so n, O ct. 1 7, 1 99 7), pe t. for pe rm . ap p. file d (Te nn., D ec. 1 6, 19 97).
Notwithst andingGraves's rel iance on rev ers ed an d in ap po site au tho rity, w e find the ind ictm en ts ag ain st h im su fficie nt u nd er t he ap plic ab le la w . The aggravated rape i ndict ments all ege in pert inent part, That N els on B. G rav es he reto fore on the 1s t da y o f Ap ril, 19 80
. . . did un law fully and felo nio us ly engage in sexual penetr ati on, to wit : [method of sexual penetrat ion] 2 , w ith [t he vict im], a person t hirt een (13) years of age, by u sing for ce an d c oe rcio n to accomplish

sa id act, and di d cause personal inj ury to [ the vict im], agai nst the peace and digni ty of the Stat e. At the ti me of the crimes, aggrava ted rape was defined i n perti nent part as " unlawful sexual penetrat ion of anot her accompanied by any of t he fol lowing ci rcumstances: . . . The actoruses force or co erc ion to a cc om plis h th e a ct, a nd . . . [t]h e a cto r ca us es pe rso na l inju ry t o th e v ictim
. . . . " Tenn. Co de A nn. § 39-3 703 (Su pp. 1 979 ).
Th e a gg rav ate d k idn ap pin g in dic tm en t alle ge s in pe rtine nt p art, That N els on B. G rav es he reto fore on the 1s t da y o f Ap ril, 19 80
. . . did unl awfull y and felo nio us ly se ize , confi ne , inv

eis le [s ic], e ntic e, d ec oy , ab du ct, c on ce al k idn ap or carry away [the vict im], and whil e being so held t he said [ vict im] was

the vic tim of a felo ny , to w it: Ag gra va ted R ap e, a ga ins t the pe ac e a nd dig nity of th e S tate . O n th e re lev an t da te, a gg rav ate d k idn ap pin g w as crim ina lize d in pe rtine nt p art a s3 The Criminal Code also provided that an indictment of a crime

chargeable at common law c ould "be charged or described substantially at common law." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1805 (1975) (now § 40-13-205). 5 fol lows: Any

person who seizes, confi nes, invei gles, ent ices, decoy s , abducts, conceals, kidnapsor ca

rries a wa y an y ind ividua l sha ll be de em ed g uilty of a ggra v ated ki dnapping when one or more of the fol lowing ci rcumstances are pr esent . . . The vic tim su ffer s s erio us bo dily ha rm or is the vic tim of a ny felo ny co m m itted w hile being he ld . . . . Te nn. C ode An n. § 3 9-26 03 (S upp . 198 0). A p ort ion of th e fo rm er C rim ina l C od e re lev an t to G rav es pro vid ed tha t ind ictm en ts must sta

te the fa cts co nstituting the o ffense in ord i nary andconcise l anguage, wit hout pro lixity or repeti ti on, in su c

h a manner as to enable a person of comm on understandi ng

to know what is i ntended, and with t hat degree of ce rtain ty whi ch wi l l en ab le th e c ou rt, on co nv ictio n, to pro no un ce the pro pe r jud gm en t . . . . Tenn. Code

Ann. § 40

-180 2 (19 75) (c urren tly cod ified at T enn . Co de A nn. § 40-1 2-20 2). 3 The ind ictm en ts in th e c as e a t ba r clo se ly fo llow the s tatutory form of th e c rim es . Th eir fo rm is c on sis ten t w ith the mandate of section

40 -18 02
. C f., e.g
. , Carl E. Sai ne ; Willi am E

dward W hit t v. State , No. 02C01-9704-CC-00140

(T en n. C rim . A pp ., Ja ck so n, J uly 1, 19 97) ( Rule 20 Order). Thus, we fi nd the m su fficie nt u nd er t he law as it ex iste d a t the tim e.
Graves's fina l iss ue alle ge s c on stitu tion al d ep riva tion by the co urt be low in "ref using to en ter tain a properly dr afted pet it ion with val id i ssues for revi ew." Because w e h av e f ou nd Gra ve s's substanti ve

issues ar e not

vali d bases for granti ng habeas corpus relief , thi s argument collapses of its o w n w eig ht.

Th e trial co urt's dism issal o f the m eritless petition is affirm ed.6 _______________________________ CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_____________________________ GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

_____________________________ JOSEP H M. T I PTON, JUDGE