1



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

AT JAC KSON

MA RLO N T HOMA S v. STEV E D OTSON , WA RD EN
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty No. 06-02-154 JoeH. Walker, III, Jud ge

No. W2006-01157-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Dece m ber 8, 2006

The Petitioner, Mar l o n T h o m as, appe als the trial court's de nial of his petition for habe as cor pus relief

. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court' s denial of r elief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. The Petitioner has f ailed to alleg e any g round that would rende r the judg ment of convic tion void. According ly , we g rant the State’ s motion a nda ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the low e r c ou rt

. 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
J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich A L AN E. G L EN N AND J.C. M C LIN , J J . joined. Marlon Thomas, pr o se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & R eporte r; Rache l E. Wi llis, Assi stant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, the State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

I n J uly 2002, the Shelby

CountyGrand J ury

returne d an indictment cha rg ing the Petitioner, Marlon Thomas, with two alternative counts of a g g ravated robbe ry . Petitioner Thomas enter ed a g uiltyplea on De cembe r 12, 2003, to one count of agg ravated robbery as charg ed in count 1 of theT h e re c o rd is ab se n t t h e d isp o sitio n o f C o u n t 2 o f t h e ind ic tm e n t. T h e P e tit io n e r m a inta ins tha t co u n t 2 1 was dis m i ss ed and do es not rai se a chal l enge t o t hi s co unt i n hi s hab eas corp us p et i t i o n. 2 ind ic tme nt. F or

thi s o ff e ns e , Pe tit ion e r Th oma s r e c e ive d a se nte nc e of

fo urte e n y e ars a s a

mul tip le 1 offe nder in the Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction. On May 18, 2006, the Petitioner filed a pe tition for writ of habeas corpus relief in the Ha rd em an CountyCircuit Court. As gr ounds for re lief, Petitioner alleg ed “a g g ravated robbe ry indictments, failed to alleg e an of fense , and was there by void.

. . .” Specif ically , Petitioner Thomas arg ued that the indictment “did not alleg e the r equire d element of intent, nor did i t alleg e that the Petitioner place d the victim in fear of her life.” O n May

26, 2006, the trial court denied habe as corpus r elief, f

inding that the “indictment attache d includes the re quired lang uag e. The indictment alleg es knowing ly .” The trial court further found that the Petitioner’s sentenc es had not e x pired a nd that th e c ou rt

ha d ju ri sd ic tio n to sen te nc e the de fe nd a nt to the se nte nc e re c e ive d. Pe tit ion e r t ime ly filed a notice of appe al document on June 2, 2006. The g rounds upon which ha beas c orpus re lief may

be g ranted i n this state are narr ow. Hi c k ma n v . S tate , 153 S.W .3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004). Relief will be g rante d if the petition establishes that the challeng ed judgment i s void. Id. A judg ment is void “only when ‘ [i ]tappea

rs upon the fa ce of thejud g me nt o r the re c or d o f the pr oc e e din g s u po n whi ch th e ju dg me nt i s r e nd e re d’ that a convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction or authority to sentence a def

endant, or that a def

endant’ s sentenc e of imprisonment or other restraint has expi red.” Hickm an , 1 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d at2 0 (q u o t i n g Sta te v . R itc hie , 20 S.W .3d 624, 630 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted)).

Al t h o u gh in most i nstance s a cha lleng e to the suff iciency of an indictment is not a prope r claim t o raise in a habeas c orpus proc eeding , see Haggard v. State, 475 S.W .2d 186, 187-88 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1971), " the validity of an indictment a nd the efficac y of the re sulting convic tion may be addre ssed in a petition for habeas corpus when the indictment is so defe ctive as to de prive the court of j uri sd ict io n. " Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W .2d 528, 529 (Tenn. 1998) . "Avalid indictment is an ess ent ial ju ri sd ict io nal ele men t, wi th ou t w hi ch t here can b e no pro secu ti on ." Id. (citations omitted).
The Petitioner conte nds that the indictment is defec tively fl aw ed because the indictment failed to c harg e the mens rea of theof fe ns e of a g g ra vate d r ob be ry . T he ind ic tme nt p ro vid e d: Cou nt 1

Th e Gr a ndJuro rs of

theState of

Te nn e sse e . . . p re se nt that: MARL ON THO MAS
on Au g us t 12 , 2 00 2, in S he lby Cou nty

. . . andbe fo rethefi nd ing of thi s in dic tme nt, didun la wf

ull y , kno wi ng ly , a ndvio le ntl y , b y us e of a deadly

we apo n, to w it: Handg un, obtain from t h e p erson of PAT TI GRETTE, a pur se and its contents, ,3

proper g oods and cha

ttels of PAT TI GR E T T E , in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-402, ag ainst the pea ce and dignity of the State of T ennesse e.
An indictment or pre sentment is sufficient if ( a) it contains the elements of the offe nse which is inte nd e d to be ch arg e d, (b ) it a de qu a te ly app ri se s th e a c c us e d o f the of fe ns e he is c a lle d u po n to defe nd, (c) the t rial j udg e knows to what offense he must apply the judg ment, and (d) the ac cused knows with a ccur acy to w hat extent he may plead a former acquittal or convic t i o n i n a f u t ure prosec ution for the same offense. Se e ge ne ra lly J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7, 31 4, 99 S. Ct

. 2781, 2789 (1979). " The fundamental test of t he sufficiency of an indictment is the adequacy of the no ti ce t o t he d efen dan t co nv ey ed b y it s t erm s. " Gree n v. State, 143 S.W .2d 713, 715 (Tenn. 1940) ; se e als o S tate v . M

ay e s, 85 4 S. W.2 d 6 38 , 6 40 (T e nn . 1 99 3)

. Th e ind ic tme nt i n th is c a se fu lf ill s it s purpose. It ref

ere nces a specific statutory section and specifie s the i ntent and the means by which th e d e f e n d a n t a c c o mp li s h e d the cr ime. The c ontent of the indictment wa s sufficient to plac e the Petitioner on notice of the nature of the char g e, confe r jurisdiction upon the trial court, and protec t ag ainst double jeopar dy . Moreove r, contra ry to the Petitioner’s argum en t , ag g ravated robbe ry require s only

that the “thef

t of property

from the pe rson of another” i s “by violence or

putting the person in fe ar.” See T. C.A . § 39 -1 3- 40 1( a ). Th us , Pe tit ion e r is not en tit le d to ha be a s r e lie f a s to thi s c la im.

The Petitioner also c ontends on appe al to this Court that the “ indictments render ed [were ] not presente d or hande d down by a Gr and Jury .” As prope rly noted by the S tate, an a

ppellate c ourt will not consider an issue r aised for the first time on appe al. State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W .2d 136, 153 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

.
For the re asons stat ed h er ei n, we c onclude that the trial court did not err in dismi ssing the petition for habe as cor

pus relief

. Acc ording ly , it is ordered that the State’s motion is g rante d. The judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed in a ccor dancewith Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, J UDGE