1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON
WILLIE L. PE GUE S v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 05-02-0093 JoeH. Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2005-02733-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Jul y 20, 2006

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Willi e L . Pe g ue s, wh o is se rv ing a se nte nc e of

lif e impr iso nme nt f

or fi rs t deg ree felony

murder, a

ppeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for ha beas c orpus re lief. The State has filed a motion reque sting that this Court aff irm the t rial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The P etitioner has failed to a lleg e any g round that would re nder the judg ment of convic tion void. According ly , we a ffirm the tria l court’s dismissal.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of the Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the o p i n ion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I LLI A M S and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J . joined.
Wil lie L . Peg ues, pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Rache l E. Wil lis, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, the State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On Novembe r 22, 1991, the Petitioner wa s convicted of felony murder and sentenc ed to l ife in prison. See State v . W

illie L. Pegues , No. 02C01-9202-CR-00040 (Te nn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Mar. 9, 1994) , perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. July5, 1994). The judg ment o f co n v i ction was aff irmed on appe al. Id

. The Petitioner filed a pe tition for post-conviction relief in 1995, which was denied by the trial court. T his c ourt aff irmed the dec ision of the trial court and conclude d that the Petitioner rec eived the eff ective assistance of counse l. W ill ie L. P e gu e s v . S tate , No. 02C01-9705-2

CR-0018 2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, A pr. 1, 1998), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. F eb. 1, 1999).
On Octobe r 12, 2005, the Petitioner filed a petition for habe as cor

pus relief in the Har deman Cou nty Cir c uit Cou rt

. As ground s f

or re lie f, thePe tit ion e r a lle g e d th a t hi s c on vic tio n w a s v oid be c aus e his ind ic tme nt f

or fi rs t de g re e fe lon y

mur de r w a s d e fe c tiv e . T he tria l co urt su mma ri ly denied ha beas c orpus re lief on Oc tober 20, 2005, finding that t h e P etitioner’s sente nces ha ve not ex p i re d an d t hat the trial c ourt had jurisdiction and the authority to sentence the Petitioner to the sentenc e he r ece ived. A timely notice of a

ppeal doc ument was filed on N ovember 21, 2005.
The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the lower c o u rt ’s d en i al of habea s corpus re lief pursua nt to Rul e 20, Rul es o f Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. As g rounds for its motion, the State asserts that the Petitioner failed to state a colora ble claim for ha

beas corpus r elief.
I n th is s tate , h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f onl y a dd re sse s det e nti on s tha t re su lt f ro m vo id j ud g me nts or expired sentenc es. See A rcher v . State , 8 51 S.W. 2d 15 7, 16 4 (T e nn
. 19 93 ). A jud g me nt i s v oid “only when ‘ [i ]t appea

rs upon the fac e of the judgme nt or the rec ord of the proc eeding s upon which the judg ment is rende red’ that a convicting c ourt was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a def endant, or that a def endant' s sentenceof imprisonment or other r estraint has expired.” Hickm an v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004) ( qu oti ng Sta te v . R itc hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (citations om itted)). The petitioner bea rs the burde n of establishing either a void judgment or

an illega l confineme nt by

a pre ponderance of the evidenc e. Pa ssa re lla v . S tate , 891 S.W .2d 619, 627 (Tenn . Crim. App.1994), superce ded by statute as stated in State v. Stev en S. Newman , No. 02 C01 -9 70 7- CC- 00 26 6 ( Te nn
. Cr im. Ap p. a t Jac ks on , Ma r. 11 , 19 98 ). I f the pe tit ion e r c arrie s th is burden, he is entitled to im mediate r elief. Ho we v er , wh ere the alleg ations in a petition for writ of habea s corpus do not demonstrate that the j udg ment is void, a trial c ourt may corr ectly dismiss the petition without a hear i ng
. McLan ey v . B e ll , 59 S.W .3d 90, 93 (Tenn.2001) (citing T.C.A. § 29 -2 1- 10 9 ( 20 00 ); see, e .g. , Arc he r, 851 S.W .2d at 164 (par enthetica l omitt ed)) . The Petitioner does not contend that his sentenc es have expired; thus, he is onlyentitled to relief if his judgments ar e void. Although in most instances a challeng e to the suff

iciency of a n i n d i ct ment is not a proper claim to raise in a

habea s corpus proc eeding , s e e H a g g a r d v . S tat e , 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 620, 475 S.W .2d 186, 187-88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971), “the validity of an indictment and the eff icac y of the re su lti ng con vict ionma y be a dd re sse d ina

pe tit ionfo r h abe a s c or

pu s w he n th e ind ic tme nt i s so defe ctive as to deprive the court of jurisdiction.” Dykes v. Compton , 978 S.W .2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998). An indictment is sufficie nt if it contains t he elements of t he offense which is intended to be ch ar ged , i t ad eq u at el y ap p ri s es t h e ac cu s ed o f t h e o ff en s e h e i s ca l l ed u p o n t o d ef en d , t h e t ri al j u d ge knows to what off

ense he must apply

to the judgme nt, and the ac cused know s with a ccur acy to whatIn this re g a rd , w e no te tha t t h e ind ic tm e n t, w h ic h is t h e su b je c t o f t h is a p p e a l, is no t i n c lud e d in the re c o rd

. 1 It i s t he P et i t i o ner’ s d ut y t o prep are a r eco rd which conveys a co m p l et e acco unt of what t rans p i red i n t he l o wer co urt w ith re sp e c t t o the issu e p re se n te d o n a p p e a l an d failur e to d o so m a y re su lt in w a ive r o f t h a t i ssu e
. See T e n n
. R. A p p
. P

. 24 (b).

3 extent he may

plead a former acquittal or c onviction in a future pr osecution for t h e s am e offense. Se e ge ne ra llyJ

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 314, 99 S. C t. 2781 (1979). 1
Onapp e a l, the Pe tit ion e r p re se nts theissue of whe th er “ thetria l c ou rt of She lby Cou nty Criminal Court lacked jurisdiction to try [t he Petitioner] for the off ense of robbery .” As sug g ested by the Petitioner’s brief

, the Petitioner arg ues that he w as tried for the offe nse of robbery under the felony murder count “bec ause robbery is alleg ed in the felony murder count” of the indictment. The Pe tit ion e r f

oll ow s w iththearg ume nt that th e tria l c ou rt
lacke d jurisdiction to tryhim for the off ense of robbery , that based on the face of the rec ord or the underlying trial proce eding s upon which the judg ment is render ed, wa s pr e jud ic ia l pe r s e , b e c aus e the ratio na l[e ] [sic ] is that th e re su lti ng c on vic tio n is vo id beca use thereis not an indictment or separ ate and distinct count pursuant to the p r o v i s i o n s o f

T e n n
. R

. C r i m
. P

. 8 ( a ) , c h ar g i n g h i mw i t h t h e o f f e n s e o f r o b b e r y. We rejec t both the fac ts and the re asoning of t he P etitioner’s arg ument. The Petitioner wa s neither c harg ed, tried, nor convicted of ro b b er y
. As such, the Petitioner is not under the le g al restraint of a convic tion for robbe ry , which is the pre requisit e for obtaining ha

beas c orpus re lief. Thereis no require ment that a def endant who is c harg ed with first degr ee f elony murder a lso be char g ed in a se parate count of the indictme n t with the attempt or per petration of the underlying felony o r cr i m e s u pporting the fe lony murder pr osecution. F inally , as this court has obse rved, althoug h “a f

elony murder indictment must all ege t hat the killing wa s committed during the perpe tration of a f

elony ,” ther e is no requir ement that “the specific alleg ations of the ele ments and fac ts of the underly ing f

elony ” must be included in the char g ing instrument. Car los L. R ic e v . D av id Mills, W arden , No. W2005-01800-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, F eb. 23, 2006) (c i t i n g Robert How ell v. T ony Parke r, W

arden , No. W2005-00521-CCA-R3-HC ( Tenn. Crim. App. at J ac k s o n , J une 27, 2005), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. D ec. 5, 2005) . This issue is without merit.
We conclude that the Petitioner has fa iled to establish that he is entitled to h ab ea s corpus re lie f. He ha s a lle g e d n e ith e r a fa c ia lly inv a lidjud g me nt n or a n expir e d s e nte nc e . A c c or din g ly , it is o rd e re d th a t th e State ’s m ot ion is g rante d. Th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is a ff irme d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

______________________________ DAV ID G. H AYE S , J UDGE4