1

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

WILLIE L. PEGUES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County

No. 05-02-0093 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2005-02733-CCA-R3-HC - Filed July 20, 2006 

The Petitioner, Willie L. Pegues, who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for first

degree felony murder, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The

State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules

of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render

the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the

Court of Criminal Appeals

DAVID G. HAYES, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS and

ALAN E. GLENN, JJ. joined.

Willie L. Pegues, pro se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Rachel E. Willis, Assistant Attorney General, for

the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 22, 1991, the Petitioner was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life

in prison. See State v. Willie L. Pegues, No. 02C01-9202-CR-00040 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson,

Mar. 9, 1994), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. July 5, 1994). The judgment of conviction was

affirmed on appeal. Id. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in 1995, which was

denied by the trial court. This court affirmed the decision of the trial court and concluded that the

Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel. Willie L. Pegues v. State, No. 02C01-9705-
2

CR-00182 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Apr. 1, 1998), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Feb. 1,

1999). 

On October 12, 2005, the Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the Hardeman

County Circuit Court. As grounds for relief, the Petitioner alleged that his conviction was void

because his indictment for first degree felony murder was defective. The trial court summarily

denied habeas corpus relief on October 20, 2005, finding that the Petitioner’s sentences have not

expired and that the trial court had jurisdiction and the authority to sentence the Petitioner to the

sentence he received. A timely notice of appeal document was filed on November 21, 2005. 

The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the lower court’s denial of

habeas corpus relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. As

grounds for its motion, the State asserts that the Petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for habeas

corpus relief. 

In this state, habeas corpus relief only addresses detentions that result from void judgments

or expired sentences. See Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). A judgment is void

“only when ‘[i]t appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which

the judgment is rendered’ that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence

a defendant, or that a defendant's sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired.” Hickman

v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000)

(citations omitted)). The petitioner bears the burden of establishing either a void judgment or an

illegal confinement by a preponderance of the evidence. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627

(Tenn. Crim. App.1994), superceded by statute as stated in State v. Steven S. Newman, No.

02C01-9707-CC-00266 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Mar. 11, 1998). If the petitioner carries this

burden, he is entitled to immediate relief. However, where the allegations in a petition for writ of

habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may correctly dismiss the

petition without a hearing. McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90, 93 (Tenn.2001) (citing T.C.A. §

29-21-109 (2000);see, e.g., Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 164 (parenthetical omitted)). The Petitioner does

not contend that his sentences have expired; thus, he is only entitled to relief if his judgments are

void.

Although in most instances a challenge to the sufficiency of an indictment is not a proper

claim to raise in a habeas corpus proceeding, see Haggard v. State, 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 620, 475

S.W.2d 186, 187-88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971), “the validity of an indictment and the efficacy of the

resulting conviction may be addressed in a petition for habeas corpus when the indictment is so

defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction.” Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn.

1998). An indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense which is intended to be

charged, it adequately apprises the accused of the offense he is called upon to defend, the trial judge

knows to what offense he must apply to the judgment, and the accused knows with accuracy to what
In this regard, we note that the indictment, which is the subject of this appeal, is not included in the record. 

1

It is the Petitioner’s duty to prepare a record which conveys a complete account of what transpired in the lower court

with respect to the issue presented on appeal and failure to do so may result in waiver of that issue. See Tenn. R.

App. P. 24(b).

3

extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction in a future prosecution for the same offense.

See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 314, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979). 

1

On appeal, the Petitioner presents the issue of whether “the trial court of Shelby County

Criminal Court lacked jurisdiction to try [the Petitioner] for the offense of robbery.” As suggested

by the Petitioner’s brief, the Petitioner argues that he was tried for the offense of robbery under the

felony murder count “because robbery is alleged in the felony murder count” of the indictment. The

Petitioner follows with the argument that the trial court

lacked jurisdiction to try him for the offense of robbery, that based on the face of the

record or the underlying trial proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered, was

prejudicial per se, because the rational[e] [sic] is that the resulting conviction is void

because there is not an indictment or separate and distinct count pursuant to the

provisions of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a), charging him with the offense of robbery.

We reject both the facts and the reasoning of the Petitioner’s argument. The Petitioner was

neither charged, tried, nor convicted of robbery. As such, the Petitioner is not under the legal

restraint of a conviction for robbery, which is the prerequisite for obtaining habeas corpus relief.

There is no requirement that a defendant who is charged with first degree felony murder also be

charged in a separate count of the indictment with the attempt or perpetration of the underlying

felony or crime supporting the felony murder prosecution. Finally, as this court has observed,

although “a felony murder indictment must allege that the killing was committed during the

perpetration of a felony,” there is no requirement that “the specific allegations of the elements and

facts of the underlying felony” must be included in the charging instrument. Carlos L. Rice v. David

Mills, Warden, No. W2005-01800-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Feb. 23, 2006)

(citing Robert Howell v. Tony Parker, Warden, No. W2005-00521-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App.

at Jackson, June 27, 2005), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Dec. 5, 2005). This issue is without

merit. 

We conclude that the Petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus

relief. He has alleged neither a facially invalid judgment nor an expired sentence. Accordingly, it

is ordered that the State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in

accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

______________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
4