1



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

AT JAC KSON

GEOR GE P ICKLE v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. P -25218 J.C. M cLin, Ju dge

No. W2002-02622-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Fe bruary 25, 2004

This matter is befor e the Court upon the State’s m otion to aff irm the j udg ment of the trial court by opinion pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing th e tria l c o urt' s d e n ia l o f h a b e a s c o r p u s r e li e f

. T h e Pe ti ti o n e r

f a il s to a s s e rt a

gr o un d o f relief entitling him to habea s corpus re lief. Ac cording ly , the State' s motion is grante d and the judgment of the trial c ourt is affir

med. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J OE G. R I L EY , J J ., joined.
Robert B . Gaia, Me mphis, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Georg e Pickle.
Pa ul G . Summe rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Rep or te r; Mic he lle R. C ha

pma n, As sis tant Atto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR

AN DU MOP IN ION

Petitioner Georg e P ickle was convicted of one count of robbery with a deadly wea pon and two counts of grand la

rce ny by a Shelby County jury

. See Sta te v
. Ge or

gePi c k le , N o
. 1 0 0 , 1 9 9 0 WL 154624, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, O ct. 17, 1990), perm. to appe al denied, (Tenn. D ec. 31, 1990). The Petitioner w as sentenc ed to life imprisonment for the robber y conviction and to te n year s on eac h count of gra n d l ar ce n y . Id. The sente nces w ere order ed to be se rved c onsecutively

. Id. Petitioner unsucce ssfully sought post-conv i ction relief

. See Ge or

geGa ry Pi c k lev . S tate , No.T he l o cat i o n of P et i t i o ner P i ckl e’ s i ncarcerat i o n i s no t dis cl o sed i n t he reco rd b ef o re t hi s C o urt

. H o wever, 1 t hi s Co ur t i s abl e t o t ake j udi ci al not i ce of t he f act t hat P et i t i oner P i ckl e i s cu r r ent l y conf i ned a t t he T ur ney Cent er In d u stria l P riso n a n d F a rm lo c a te d in H ic k m a n C o u n ty. See T e n n . R . E v id . 2 0 1 (b ). T h e p re se n t p e tit io n w a s fil e d in Shel by Co un t y , T enn es s ee. Purs uan t t o s ect i on 29- 21

- 10 5, T enn es s ee C od e Annot at ed, a pet i t i on f or w r i t of

ha beas c o rp u s m u st b e fi le d in the c o u rt m o st c o n v e n ie n t i n p o int o f d istan c e to the a p p lica n t, u n le ss a su ff ic ie n t re a so n is s t at ed i n t h e pet i t i on f

or n ot a ppl y i n g t o s u ch c ou r t

. Pet i t i on er h as f ai l ed t o of

f er e x pl an at i on a s t o w h y t h e pet i t i on was not f

i l ed i n H i ckm an C o unt y . T he p et i t i o n co ul d have b een d i smi ss ed on t hi s ground al o ne. H o wever, as t he f ai l ure t o f

i l e t he p et i t i o n i n t he p rop er court was not l i t i gat ed at t he t ri al l evel , we d o not f i nd t hi s p o i nt dis p o si t i ve o n a p p e a l. 2 02C01-9412-CR-00271, 1996 WL275049, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, May 24, 1996). On May 28 , 2 00 2, Pe tit ion e r f ile d, pr o s e, an application for writ of habea s corpus r elief. Counsel wa s su bs e qu e ntly app oi nted

and an ame nd e d a

pp lic atio n w a s f

ile d, a lle g ingthat hi s ju dgme nt i s v oid beca use the indictments fa il to a l l ege fac ts and alleg ations sufficient to conf er jurisdiction on the criminal cour

t. On October

10, 2002, a hearing was held, afte r which the trial court denied habe as corpus r elief, f

inding Fr om all of which this court finds P eti tioner’s Alleg ations without merit and that from the fac e of the indictments, judgments, and r ecor d of the proc eeding s the trial Court had jurisdiction to sentence the Petitioner and that the Petitioner’s sentenc e of imprisonment or restra int has not ex pired.

Habe as cor

pus relief addre sses detentions that re sult from void judgments or e x pired sentenc es. See A rcher v . State, 851 S .W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). The Petitioner in this case does not argue that his sentenc e has ex pired; there fore , he is a c andidate f or habeas corpus re lie f o nly if the judg ment or sentenc e is v o i d

. T h e proc edura l require ments for ha beas c orpus re lief ar e mandatory

and must be scr

upulously followed. Arc he r, 851 S.W .2d at 165. The Petitioner ha s

1 fa ile d to atta c h to his pe tit ion e ith e r t he c op ie s o f t

he jud g me nts of con vi cti on or the ind ic tme nts

. SeeTenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-107(b)(2)

. An application for the issuance of habea s corpus may

be summarily

dismiss ed for

failure to attach the judgment forms. Id. ; se eals o State ex re l. W ood v. Johnson , 3 93 S.W. 2d 13 5, 13 6 (T e nn . 196 5)

. Mo re ov e r, on a pp e a l, the Pe tit ion e r ha s the duty to ensure that the re cord be fore this Court i s sufficient to conve y a “f air, acc urate , and complete a ccount of what transpired.” Tenn. R. App. P. 24. In this reg ard, the Petitioner’s failure to provide this Court with a complete r ecor d rele vant to the issue pre sented for revie w constitutes a waiver of the issue. See Sta tev . B all

ar d, 8 5 5 S. W. 2 d

5 5 7 , 5 6 0

- 6 1 ( T e nn
. 1 9 9 3 )

. N o tw it h s ta n d in g , it is a p p ar e nt t h at copies of the indictment were introduced by appointed counse l at the hearing held on October 10, 2003.
Al tho ugh in

mos t in sta

nc e s a c ha lle ng e to the su ff

ic ie nc y of an in dic tme nt i s n ot a

c ogniza ble claim in a habeas corpus procee ding, see Ha gg ar d v . S tate , 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 620, 475 S.W.2d 186, 187-88 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1971); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) (stating that “ [d] efe nses and objections based on defe cts in the indictment” must be raised prior to trial), the indictment may be challeng ed if the objection is ba sed on the failure of the indictment to state an off ense. See State v. Nixon , 9 77 S.W. 2d

11 9 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 97 ); se eals o W illie Tom Ensley v. Howard Carlton,3

W arden , No. E2002-00878- CCA-R3-PC, 2002 W L 31375581, *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, Oct. 21, 2002), perm. to app ea l denied, (Tenn. F eb. 18, 2003). The rationale is that the resulting conviction is void be cause there is no crime bef ore the court. W

illie Tom Ensley v. Howard Carlton, W arden , No. E2002-00878-CCA-R3-PC , 2002 WL 31375581, at *2. Thus, if an invalid indictment fails to properly

charg e an of

fense and , there by , cause s the convictingcourt to be w ithout jurisdiction, that indictment may be challeng ed in a habeas c orpus proc eeding

. W illie Tom Ensley v. Howard Carlton, W

arden , No. E2002-00878- CCA-R3-PC, 2002 W L31375581, at *2.
In revie wingthe indictment, th e trial court noted that the Petitioner’s c halleng e wa s based upon the use of the followinglanguag e:

. .. with i ntent feloniously to conve rt the same . . . to their own u s e a n d deprivethe tru eown e r th e re of. Appointed counse l argued that the ter m “fe loniously ” is not a mental state. T h i s l an guag e wa s sufficie n t under the la

w as it exist ed at the time. See Campbe ll v. State, 491 S.W .2d 359, 361 (Tenn.1973) (an indictment usingthe words " feloniously " or "u n l aw fully " is suff icient). Acc ording ly , the indictment suf ficiently charg ed the Petitioner with a crime under Tenne s s ee l aw and Pe tit ion e r i s n ot e nti tle d to ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f a s to thi s c la im.

Acc ording ly , it is ordered that the S tate’s moti on is grante d. The judgment of the trial court is a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th R

ule 20 , Ru le s o f t

he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls.



### ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE