### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 14, 200 4, a t K noxv ill e
MIL BURN L. EDWA RD S v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wayne County No. 13382 JimT. Hamilton, Judge

No. M2004- 01378-CCA -R3-HC - F iled March 7, 2005

The petiti oner, Milburn L

. Edwar ds, appea ls the trial court’s summary dismiss al of his petition for writ of habe as cor

pus. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Milburn L . Edwar ds, Clifton, Tennessee, a ppellant, pro se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter , and Richard H. Dunavant, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

I n 1991, the petitioner wa s convicted of twenty -one c ounts of rape , one count of ag g ravated rape , two counts o f fi rs t d egr ee bur g lary , one count of second de g ree burg lary , two counts of ag g ravated burg lary , one count of robbery , and one count of assault wit h intent to commit rape . The trial court imposed an eff

ective sentence of l ife plus 415 y ear s. On di rec t appea l, this court affirmed the c on vic tio ns bu t mo dif ie d th e se nte nc e s for a n ef fe c tiv e se nte nc e of lif

e plu s 195 y e ars . Se e Sta te v. Edwar ds, 868 S.W

. 2 d 6 82 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) . The fa cts underlying the petitioner’s convictions are set forth in deta il in that opini on. See id. at 687-690.

I n May of 1996, the pe titioner filed a pe tition for post-conviction relief alleg ing ine ffe ctive assistance of counse l. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief , concluding that the petit ioner had rec eived the eff ective a ssistance of c ounsel at trial and on appea l. This court aff

irmed. See Milburn L

. Edwar ds v. State, M2002-02124-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, De c. 15, 2003).-2-

On Marc h 4, 2004, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleg ing that the trial court wa s without jurisdi ction to convict or sentenc e. Pursuant to a motion by the state, the tria l court dismiss ed the petition without a hearing. I n this a ppeal of rig ht, the petitioner cla ims that the trial court e rre d by

failing to conduct a hearing. The state responds that the s ummary dismiss al was appropriate bec ause the petitioner fa iled to alleg e g rounds that would justify habea s corpus re lief.

A writ of ha

beas c orpus may

be g rante d only

wh en the petitioner ha s established a la ck of jurisd ic tio n f

or the or de r o f co nf

ine me nt o r that he is o the rw ise e nti tle d to imm e diate re le a se be c a us e of the e xpir a tio n o f h is s e nte nc e

. Se e Us se ry v. Av e ry , 2 22 Te nn . 5 0, 43 2 S. W.2 d 6 56 (1 96 8) ; State
e x re l Wa de v. No rv e ll, 1 T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 44 7, 44 3 S. W.2 d 8 39 (1 96 9) . H abe a s c or pu s re lie f i s available in this st ate only when it appe ars on the fa ce o f t he judg ment or the re cord that the trial court wa s without j u ri s d iction to convict or sentenc e the pe titioner or that the sente nce of imprisonment has otherwise e x pired. Ar cher v. State, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pott s v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992) . Unlike the post-convic tion petition which would affor d a means of r elief f

o r constitutional violations, such as the deprivation of the eff ective a ssistance of counsel, the pur

pose of th e habe as cor

pus petition is t o contest a void, not mere ly a voidable, judgme nt. State ex rel Newsome v. He n d er s o n , 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 189 (1969). A petitioner cannot attack a fac ially valid conviction in a habe as cor pus proce eding . Potts , 833 S.W .2d at 62; State ex rel Holbrook v. B omar, 211 Te nn. 243, 364 S.W .2d 887, 888 (1963).

A sentenc e in dir ect contra vention of a statute is illeg al and can be set aside at any time, even afte r the judg ment has become final. See Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 85 (Tenn. 1999) ; State v. Bur khart, 566 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978). I n contra st, a sentenc e that is mere ly err oneous ca nnot be set a side afte r the judg ment is final. See State v. Mahle r, 735 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tenn. 1987).

I n th is a pp e a l, the pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t hi s p e tit ion in clu des the fo llo wi ng c og niza ble claims: (1) that the t rial court was without jurisdiction to sentenc e him under the 1982 Sentencing Act on counts 1 throug h 8 and 10; ( 2) that the trial court was without authority to sentence him as
a c are e r o ff e nd e r b e c a us e the state fa ile d to p ro vid e no tic e of its int e nt t o s e e k e nh a nc e d p un ish me nt; (3 ) that th e tr ia l c ou rt

la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to se nte nc e him un de r the 19 89 Se nte nc ing Ac t on c ou nts 23, 24, and 26; and (4) that the trial court lacke d jurisdiction to enter judgme nt s o f conviction be c a us e the ind ic tme nts fa ile d to c ha rg e of fe ns e s.
The fir st claim is ba sed upon the fac t that the crimes underlying counts 1 throug h 8 and 10
wer e committed prior to Nove mber 1, 1989, while the petitioner was sentenc ed af terwa rd. The trial court sente nced the petitioner under the 1982 Act. This question of sentenc ing w as fully addre ssed by this court on direc t appea l. See Edwards, 868 S.W .2d at 701-02. The trial court ha d jurisdiction to impose the senten ce on eac h count. See James D. L . Perry v. Howar d Carlton, Warden, No. E2004-01000-CCA-R3-HC, slip op. at 2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvil le, Nov. 22, 2004) ( holding that habea s corpus issue wa s without merit where it ha d been pr eviously addre ssed by

this court on direc t appea l).-3-

This court has a lso ruled that the state’ s failure to give notice of intent to see k enhanc ed punishment would not result in a n illega l or void judg ment and is not, theref ore, subjec t to habeas
c or pu s r e lie f. Se e Sta te v. Jame s R. B ri tt, No . E 20 00 -0 22 59 -C CA -R 3- CD , s lip op . a t 2 ( Te nn . Crim. App., at Knoxvill e, Apr . 10, 2001). Thus, the pe titioner is not entitled to relief . See State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000)

.
Ne xt the pe tit ion e r c on te nd s that his se nte nc e s o n c ou nts 23 a nd24 , b othra pe c on vic tio ns , wer e void and illega l be cause the trial court was without jurisdiction to or der 60-y ea r s en t en ces un de r the 19 89 Ac t. He a lso c omp la ins that his sen te nc e fo r ro bb e ry in co un t 26 w a s il le g a l a ndvo id beca use the trial c ourt lacke d jurisdiction to senten ce him to 30 y ear s under the 1989 A ct. The
re c or d, ho we ve r, re fu te s th e pe tit ion e r’ s a sse rt ions. The pe tit ion e r, a Ra ng e I I I

of fe nd e r, a c tua lly
re ce i v ed 3 0 -y ear

sentenc es, not 60-y ear

sentenc es, for

the ra pe convic tions on counts 23 and 24. Edwar ds, 868 S.W .2d at 687. L ikewise, the trial court ordere d a sentence of 15 y ear s, not 30, for the
ro bb e ry c on vic tio n on c ou nt 26

. I d. As the state no te s, the se nte nc e s we re wi thi n th e appl ic able
rang e s. Se e Te nn . Co de An n. § 40 -3 5- 11 2( c )( 2) - (3 ). I n c on se qu e nc e , thi s iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t. Finally , the pet i tioner conte nds that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief bec ause the underly ing indictments fa iled to char g e off enses. The state conte nds t h at t h e i n dictments were sufficie nt. This issue is reviewable as a ha beas c orpus claim. See Wy att v. State, 24 S.W .3d 319 (Tenn. 2000) (re viewing habea s corpus c laim that orig inal attempt indictment was insufficie nt for failing to alleg e overt act). That doe s not mean, howe ver, tha t the petitioner is entitled to a writ of ha be a s c or pu s. Al tho ug h d e fe ns e s b a se d u po n in dic tme nt d e fi c ie nc ie s mu st be pr e se nte d p ri or to trial, Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12( b)(2) and (f) , a valid indictment is essential to pr osecution. W h en t he content does not c harg e an of fense or does not conf

er jurisdiction, it is subjec t to attack at a ny time. Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W .2d 528 (Tenn. 1998)

.
A criminal indictment mus t include a suff icient desc ription of the offe nse to ensure that the defe ndant under stands the nature of the c harg e. Jackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 314 (1979). The essential func tions of the indictment are to p ro v i d e n o t ice of the cha rg e, ena ble entry of a pr oper judgme nt upon conviction, and protect ag ainst double jeopar dy . State v. By rd, 820 S.W.2d 739, 741 (T e nn . 1 99 1) . I n Wy a tt, ou r s up re me c ou rt state d a s f

oll ow s:
The Six th a nd the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constit ution and Article I , § 9 of the Te nnessee Constit ution gua rante e the a ccuse d the right to be i n f o r m e d o f t h e n a t u r e a n d c a u s e o f t h e a c c u s a t i o n

. . . . W e h a v e c o n s i s t e n tly interpre ted these c onstitut ional provisions to require that an indictment: 1) provide
no tic e to the a c c us e d of

the of fe ns e c ha rg e d; 2 ) p ro vid e the c ou rt wi th an a de qu a te g round upon which a

proper judgme nt may

be ente red; a nd 3) provide the defe ndant with protection ag ainst double jeopar dy

. . . . 24 S.W .3d at 324 (c itations omi tted).-4-

I n State v. Hill, 954 S.W .2d 725, 729 (Tenn. 1997) , our supre me co u rt h el d t h at an ind ic tme nt c ha

rg ing a g g ra va te d ra

pe wa s v a lide ve n th ou g h it didno t a lle g e a

c ulp able me nta l st a te beca use “the require d mental s t at e [ could] be inferr ed fr om the nature of the c riminal conduct al l ege d

. ” I n State v. Stokes, 954 S.W .2d 729 (Tenn. 1997) , an indictment for r ape of a child wa s determined to be suffic ient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction whe re it util ized the lang uag e of the statute but alleg ed n o cu l p able menta l state. A similar result occ urre d in Ruff v. State, 978 S.W .2d 95, 100 (Tenn. 1998) , wher e the c harg es incl u d ed ag g ravated sexual battery , ag g ravated rape , and ag g ravated kidnaping , an d t h e court held that “whe re the constitutional and statutory
re qu ir e me nts ou tli ne d in Hi ll a re me t, an in dic tme nt w hic h c it es th e pe rtine nt s ta tut e a ndus e s it s lang uag e will be suff

icient to support a conviction.” Finally , in State v. Ba rney , 986 S.W .2d 545, 547 (Tenn. 1999) , our supre me court ruled that i ntent could be logic ally inferr ed from an indictment i n cl u ding c harg es of r ape of a child and a g g ravated sexual battery wher e it was a lleg ed that the defe ndant had e n gag ed in “unlaw ful sexual penetra tion” and “unla wful sexual contact” with the victim.

I n State v. Wil son, 31 S.W .3d 189, 191-92 (Tenn. 2000) , our hig h court de termined that a n indictment char g ing de livery of coc aine whic h ref

ere nced the appropriate st atute but di d not include an alleg ation of the c ulpable mental state was sufficie nt de spite the omission. Simi larly , in State v. Carter , 988 S.W .2d 145, 148-49 (Tenn. 1999), our supreme c ourt ruled that indictments for felony murder w hich made r efe renc e to the statute but fa iled to include the re quired mens rea w ere nevertheless suffic ient. The c ourt determined that a re fer ence to the statute was suff icient notice of the re quired leve l of intent. I d. at 149.

These r ece nt decisions of our supreme court establish that an indictment is adequate when it achieve s the overriding purpose of notice to the acc used. I n this case, the pe titioner does not make any specific arg ument as t o how the under ly ing indictments, whic h are a part of the re cord, w ere insufficient. I n our view, the content of eac h indictment suf ficiently apprised the petitioner of the
natur e of the c ha rg e s a g a ins t hi m so a s to ena ble the e ntry of pr op e r jud g me nts a ndto p ro te c t a g a ins t do ub le je op ard y . A mon g oth e r thin g s, each ind ic tme nt m a de sp e c if ic re fe re nc e to the app lic able statute, provided the date of the of fense , and identified the name of the victim. That was e noug h. See State v. Ha mmonds, 30 S .W.3d 294 (Tenn. 2000).

Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRES I DING JUDGE