FILED

May 18, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

OCTOBER SESSION, 1997

BRENT A. BLYE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9612-CR-00469

)

Appellant, )

)

) JOHNSON COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. LYNN W. BROWN

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appellee. ) (Direct Appeal)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

BRENT A. BLYE JOHN KNOX WALKUP

Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter

149508 NECC POB 5000

Mountain City, TN 37683 SANDY R. COPOUS

Assistant Attorney General

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

DAVID CROCKETT

District Attorney General

Route 19, Box 99

Johnson City, TN 37601

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
 

1

 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 Sullivan

County Criminal Court for possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent

to sell and for evading arrest. As a Range I standard offender, Appellant

received the following concurrent sentences:1

 (1) On the conviction for

possession with intent to sell, the trial court sentenced Appellant to ten years

incarceration with the Tennessee Department of Correction, ordered him to pay

$26.50 to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund, and fined him $50,000.00.

(2) On the evading arrest conviction, the court ordered Appellant to serve eleven

months and twenty-nine days jailtime, directed him to pay $26.50 to the Criminal

Injuries Compensation Fund, and fined him $2,500.00. On September 10, 1996,

Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus and moved to proceed in

forma pauperis. In his application, Appellant alleged that he was being illegally

restrained under a void conviction in which the underlying indictment failed to

sufficiently state a mens rea. On October 28, 1996, the trial court denied

Appellant's petition on the ground that the application failed to state a claim for

which habeas corpus relief could be granted. Appellant presents the following

issue for our consideration in this direct appeal: whether the trial court erred in

dismissing Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus prior to the State's filing

a response and without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

We conclude that the trial court properly denied Appellant's application

prior to the filing of any response by the State. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109
- 3 -

provides, "If, from the showing of the petitioner, the plaintiff would not be entitled

to any relief, the writ may be refused, the reasons for such refusal being briefly

endorsed upon the petition, or appended thereto." This Court has held that the

trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus under the

authority of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 where the petition fails to state a

cognizable claim. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1994). See also William Jones v. State, C.C.A. No. 01C01-9308-CR-00272,

Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, July 14, 1995).

Similarly, we find no merit in Appellant's complaint that the trial court

improperly denied his application for writ of habeas corpus without conducting an

evidentiary hearing. "A full evidentiary hearing is not required for every petition

for habeas corpus." Weatherly v. State, 704 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1985). An evidentiary hearing is not warranted unless the petitioner alleges facts

adequately demonstrating the void character of the proceedings which led to his

confinem ent. Id. (citing Russell v. State ex rel Willis, 437 S.W.2d 529 (Tenn.

1969)).

The Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hill governs the

resolution of this question. 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). The Hill court held

that:

[F]or offenses which neither expressly require nor plainly

dispense with the requirement for a culpable mental state, an

indictment which fails to allege such mental state will be

sufficient to support prosecution and conviction for that

offense so long as (1) the language of the indictment is

sufficient to meet the constitutional requirements of notice to

the accused of the charge against which the accused must

defend, adequate basis for entry of a proper judgment, and

protection from double jeopardy; (2) the form of the indictment

meets the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13-202; and

(3) the mental state can be logically inferred from the conduct

alleged.

Id. at 726-27.
- 4 -

The indictment in the instant case is sufficient under this analysis.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Court of Criminal

Appeals Rule 20.

____________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

___________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE