1



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

AT JAC KSON

CHA RLE S HA LL v. DA VID MILLS , WA RD EN

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 6000 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2005-02266-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Janu ary 26, 2006

The Petitioner, Charle s Hall, appe als the trial court’s denial of his petiti on for ha beas c orpus re lief. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that thi s C o u rt af fi rm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is gra nted. The judg ment of the trial court is af firmed.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t Affir m 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.C. M C LIN , J.
, d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in w hich D A V I D G. H A Y ES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J . joined.

Charles Ha ll, pro se.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & R e p o r

t e r ; D a v i d E d w a r d C oe ne n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

Petitioner Charles Ha ll was convicte d by a jury of two counts of a g g ravated ro b b ery . For these o f f e n s e s , th e Pe ti ti o n e r w a s s e n te n c e d
, a s a r e p e a t v io le n t o f f e n d e r , to tw o s e n te n c es of life without the possibil ity

of par ole. The r ecor ds of this indicate that the trial c ourt’s orde r wa s entere d on May 20, 2005. A notice of

appea l document wa s filed on J une 6, 2005, and the matter ha s y et to b e su bmi tte d to a

pa ne l of thi s Co urt f

or dis po sit ion on dir e c t app e a l.2

On September

2, 2005, the Petitioner filed an a pp l i ca t i o n for ha

beas c orpus re lief in the L auder dale Count y Circuit Court. As g rounds for habea s corpus relief, the Petitioner claimed that indictments render ed ag ainst him charg ing him with the offenses of ag g ravated robbe ry wer e void. Specifica lly , the Petitioner alleg ed that the indictments ag ainst him “failed to cha rg e or invoke the jurisd ic tio n o f the [c]o urt, b e c a us e the ind ic tme nt[s ] didno t c ha rg e that th e Pe tit ion e r i nte nti on a lly de prive d th e vic tim

of the a lle g e d p ro pe r g oo ds a nd c hatte ls, wi th the int e nt to co nv e rt the sa me to his own.” B y

order enter ed S eptember 14, 2005, and without waiting for the response of the State, the lower court de nied habe as cor

pus relief , finding that the indictments ag ainst the Petitioner wer e sufficie nt to vest jurisdiction i n the court. On September 22, 2005, the Petitioner f iled a notice of

app e a l do c ume nt. Th e Pe tition e r i s c ur re ntl y c on fi ne d at th e W est Te nn e sse e Sta te Pr iso n in Henning , Tenne ssee.

The State ha s fi l ed a m o tion with thi s Court requesting summary aff irmance of the lowe r court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of t he Tennessee Court of C riminal Appea ls. I n support of its positi on, the State asserts that the Petiti oner f ailed to s ati sfy

the proc edura l require ments of seeking habea s corpus relief in that the application fails to state that the leg ality of the re straint had not alrea dy

been a djudge d upon a prior pr ocee ding of the same c hara cter . Wit hout re ac h ing the merits of the State’s a

rg ument, we a ffirm the lowe r court’s dismiss al of ha beas c orpus re lief.

The Petitioner’s c laim for habe as cor pus relief fails. Fir st, a direc t a

ppeal of the Petitioner’s convictions and sente nces a re c urre ntly

pending . This Court has previously held that a pe tition for habea s corpus re lief m ay not be maintained while a direc t appea l is pending. See E .L. Reid v. Gov

. Don Sundquist, Comm. Donald C a mp b el l and W arden Fred Rane

y , No. 02C01-9610-CC-00327, 1998 WL 28031, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 26, 1998), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. Oc t

. 1 9
, 1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t i n g Ha nk ins v . S tat e , 512 S.W .2d 591, 592 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1974)). Moreover
, even ha d the direc t appea l a lrea dy been r esolved, the Petitioner is not entitled to habea s corpus re lief based up o n the merits of his petition. A valid indictment is essential to vest jurisdiction in t he convicting court, and there fore an indictment that is so defe ctive that it fails to vest jurisdiction may be challeng ed in a habeas corpus proce eding

. Sta te v . W y att , 24 S.W .3d 319, 320-23 (Te nn. 2000). I n the instant case , the counts of the indictment of which the Petitioner complains are attache d to the habea s corpus pe tition and are inc l u d ed in the rec ord on appe al. The c ounts of the indictment set forth the Peti t i o n er’ s name, the date of the of fense , the mens rea and actus reus of ag g ravated robbery

. Moreove r, both c ounts of ag g ravated robbery included in the indictment clearly ref ere nce the a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

statut e , T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 13 -4 02 . U nd e r these circ u m stance s, it is clear that e ach c ount of the indictment is sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the convicting court. See, e .g. , An ton io M. Ba tts v . S tat e , N o

. M 2 0 0 4

- 0 0 4 7 0

- CC A

- R3

- H C, 2 0 0 4 WL 2387504, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oct. 26, 2004), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. F eb. 28 , 2 00 5) ; W

ill iam H. Sti tts v . S tat e , No. M2004-00568-CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL 2387503, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oc t. 25, 2004), p e r m

. to a p p e a l de nied
, (T enn. J an. 31, 2005). Acc ording ly , the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas c orpus re lief.3

The Petitioner has f

ailed to establish by

a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e that his convictions

are void or his term of imprisonment has expired. Acc ord i n g ly , the State' s motion i s g rante d. The judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed in a ccor dance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Ap pe a ls.

___________________________________ 

### J.C . MCLIN, JUDGE