# FILED May 18, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE OCTOBER SESSION, 1997 BRENT A. BLYE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9612- CR-00469 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON.LYNN W. B ROWN STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Direct Ap peal)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : BRENT A. BLYE JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney Generaland Reporter 149508 NECC POB 5000 Mountain City , TN 37683 SANDY R. COP OUS Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 DAVID CROCKETT Distri ct Attorney General Route 19, Box 99 Johnson City, TN 37601

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE1 The trial court ordered these sentences to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence resulting from a parole violation. - 2
- 

## OPINION Appellant

Brent Blye was convicted by a jury on May 1 , 1995 in the Sulliv an Coun ty Criminal Court for possessi on of over .5 g ramsof cocaine wi th the intent to sell and for evading ar rest. As a R ang e I standard offender, Appellant receive d the following concurrent sentences: 1 (1) On the convi ction fo r possession with intent to sel l, the t rial cour t sentenc ed Appellant to ten ye ars incarcerat ion with the TennesseeDepa rtmen t of Co rrection , order ed him to pay $26.50 to the CriminalInjuri es Compensation Fund, and fined hi m $50,000.00. (2) On the evading arrest conviction, the co urt ordered A ppellant to serve eleven months and twenty-ni ne days jai ltime, di rected him to pay $26.50 to t he Criminal Injuri es Com pens ation F und, a nd fine d him $2,500 .00. On September 10, 1996, Appellant

filed an applicat ion for writ of habe as corpus and moved to pr oceed in forma paup eris . In hi s applicat ion, Appell ant alle ged that hewas being illegally restrai ned under a void conv ictio n in which the und erlying indic tment fa iled to sufficie ntly state a mens r ea . On October 28, 1996, the trialcourt deni ed A ppella nt's petition on the grou nd that the application failed to state a claim fo r which habeas corpus relief could be granted. Appellant prese nts the foll owing issue for

our consider

ation in this dire ct app eal: wh ether th e trial co urt erre d in dismissingAppe llant's p etition fo r writ of hab eas c orpus prior to th e State 's fili ng a response and wit hout conducti ng an evidenti ary heari ng. After a review of

the record, we affirm the judgm ent o f the trial court pursuant to Cour

t of Cri minal Appeals Rule20. We conc lude that the t rial cour t properl y denied Appell ant's appl icatio n pri o r to the fi ling of any response by t he State. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109- 3
- provides, "If, from the showi ng of the p etitione r, the pla intiff wou ld not be enti tled to any reli ef, the writ may be ref used, the reas ons for such refusal being briefly endorsed upon th e petition, o r appen ded the reto." This Court has held t hat the trialcourt may summaril y dismiss a pet ition f or writ of

habeas corpus under t he
a uthority of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 wher e the peti tion fai ls to state a cogniza ble claim
. Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). See also Wi lliam Jon es v. State , C.C.A. No. 01C01- 9308-CR-00272, Davidson C ounty (Ten n. Crim. App ., Nashville, July 14, 1995 ). Similarly, we f indno me rit i n App ellant's complain t that the trial court impro perly denied his appl icatio n for wri t ofhabeas corpus wit hout conducti ng an evidenti ary heari ng. "A fullevidenti ary heari ng is not required for every petiti on forhabea s corpu s." We atherly v. Sta te , 704 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). An evid entiary hearin g is not warranted unless the petition er alleges facts adeq uately demonstratingthe void char acter of the procee dings w hich led to his confinem ent. Id. (citi ng Russ ell v. Sta te ex re l Willis , 437 S. W.2d 5 29 (Tenn. 1969)). The T enn essee Supreme Court's deci sion in State v. Hill governs the resoluti on of this questi on. 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). The Hill court h eld that: [F]or

offens es wh ich ne ither ex press ly requ ire nor p lainly dispense with the requirem ent for a culpable mentalstate, an indict ment which fails to allege such mental st ate will be suffic ientto suppo rt prosecutionand convict ion for t hat o ffense s o long as (1) th e lang uage of the in dictm ent is suffic ientto mee t the cons titutional requ iremen ts of notice to the accused of the c harge aga inst which the accused must defend, adequate basis f or en t ry of a pr

oper judgment, a nd protecti on from double j eopardy; (2)the form of t he indict ment meets the requ iremen ts of Tenn . Code Ann. § 40-13-202; and (3) the me ntal state can be logically i nferred from the conduct alleged. Id. at 726-27.- 4
- The indict ment in the i nstant case i s suffi cient under this an alys is. Accord ingly, we affirm the trialcourt's judgment pursuant to Court of

Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

____________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE