W e n ot e t hat t he D ef endan t ’ s bri ef

s t at es hi s na me as “ W i l l i am Leon D eck , Jr

. ” H owever , t he t ech ni cal 1

reco rd st at es t he D ef end ant ’ s nam e as “ W i l b ur Leo n D eck, Jr. , ” and , acco rdingl y , we wi l l ref er t o t he D ef end ant
us i ng t hi s na me. 

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

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 10, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. W IL BUR LEON DEC K, JR.

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Dickson Coun ty No. CR6431 Rober t E. Burch, Jud ge

No. M2003- 02334-CCA -R3-C D - F iled March 24, 2004

A Dickson Count y j u ry convicted the Def endant, Wilbur L eon De ck, Jr., of Driving Under the 1 I nf l u e n c e o f a n I n t o xi c a n t ( “ D U I ” ) , s e c o n d o f f e n s e

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d t h e D e f e n d a n t to eleve n months and twenty -nine da y s in the county jail, which i t suspended after the Def endant se rved nin e ty da y s in ja il. On app e a l, the De fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d w he n it

fa ile d to dismiss the pre sentment bec ause the caption of the prese ntment stated t he incor rec t term of the g rand jury . F ind ing no re ve rs ibl e e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s jud g me nt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OE G. R I L EY and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

Michae l J . Flana g an, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Wilbur L eon De ck, Jr.

Pa u l G

. S u m m e r s , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r ; M i c h a e l M o o r e , S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l ; R e n e e W. Turner , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Da n M. Alsobrooks, District Attorney Gene ral; and Bi l l y H. Miller, J r., Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. Opin ion I. F acts

I n this case, the D efe ndant appe als his DUI co n v i ct ion and states that, since he is “not pursuing any

issues that require an examination of the fac ts involvi ng the evidenc e itself,” he “has
no t pr e pa re d a tr a ns c ri pt o f the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tr ia l.” Acco rdi ngly , th e re are fe w f a c ts included in the re cord. The rec ord does e stablish that the Defe ndant was a rre sted on Friday , J anuary 18 , 2 00 2, fo r D UI

a ndthat he re fu se d to su bmi t to a br e a thal y z er tes t or to sig n th e c ita tio n f or m.-2-

The Dic kson County Gra nd J ury issued a prese ntment on one count of DUI , second offe nse. A jury fo un d th e De fe nd a nt g uil ty of the c ha rg e d o ff e ns e , a nd th e tr ia l c ou rt

se nte nc e d th e De fe nd a nt t o e le ve n mon ths , tw e nty -n ine da y s, a ndor de re d th a t he se rv e nin e ty da y s in ja il a ndthe ba la nc e of his sentenc e on proba tion.

The De fenda nt appea ls, contending that h i s co n viction should be reve rsed be cause the prese ntment was void on its f ac e. Specifica lly , the Def endant a sserts that the ca ption of the prese ntment is entitl ed, “ January Term Grand Jury , 2003,” but the pre sentment was f iled Dec ember 18, 2002. There fore , the Def end ant asserts, the prese ntment is flawed a nd his conviction cannot stand.

II. Ana lys is
The que stion of the validity of an indictment or pr esentment is one of law and, a s such, our revie w is de novo. State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 1997). U nder both the U nited States
a ndthe Te nn e sse e Con sti tut ion s, a c ha rg ing ins trume nt, su c h as an ind ic tme nt o r p re se ntm e nt, mus t inform the ac cused of “the nature and cause of the acc usation.” See U.S. Const. amend. VI ; Tenn. Con st. art . I , § 9; S ta te v. Ha mmo nd s, 30 S.W.3d 29 4, 29 7 (Tenn . 2 00 0) . I n a dd iti on to the se constitutional gua

rante es , the form of

an indictment or pre sentment in Tennesse e is presc ribed by statut e . T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 13 -2 02 (2 00 2) dir e c ts tha t a c ha rg ing ins trume nt:
[M] ust state the fa cts constituting the of fense in ordinary

and conc ise lang uag e, without prolix ity

or re petition, in such a manner as to ena ble a pe rson of c ommon un de rs ta nd ing to k

no w w ha t is int e nd e d, a nd wi th that de g re e of c e rt a int y wh ic h w ill enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the prope r judg ment . . . .

The Te nnessee Supreme Court has state d:
[A] n indictment is suff

icient to satisfy the constitutional gua rante es of notice to the
acc used if the indictment conta ins al l ega t ions that: (1) ena ble the ac cused to know the a c c us a tio n to wh ic h a ns we r i s r e qu ir e d; ( 2) fu rn ish the tr ia l c ou rt a n a de qu a te basis for e ntry of a prope r judg ment; and (3) pr otect the a ccuse d from a subse quent prosec ution for the same offe nse. Hammonds, 30 S.W .3d at 299 (c iting Hill, 954 S.W .2d at 727). I n Hammonds, the Court announc ed its “relaxation of common law pl ea d i ng require ments and . . . re luctance to elevate form over substance w hen eva luating the sufficie ncy of i ndictments” and stated, “[ I ]ndi ctments which a chieve the ov e rridi ng pu rp os e of no tic e to the a c c us e d w ill be c on sid e re d s uf fi c ie nt t o s a tis fy

bo th constitutional and statutory require ments.” I d. As to t h e fo rm o f the indictment, including the caption at the be g inning of all indictments, Tennessee Co d e A n n o ta ted sec tion 40-13-201 states, “A n indictment must contain, in the caption or body there of, the na me of the state , county and court, and term in and a t which it is pref err ed, and must conclude ‘ag ainst the peace and dig nity of the state of Tenne ssee.’ ” A r efe renc e to an “indictment” in our statutes includes a “pre sentment” whe never the-3-

context will permit it. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-13- 101(b) ( 1997).

The De fenda nt contends that the pre sentment in this case is fa tally flawe d. The text of the pr e se ntm e nt at is su e re a ds a s f oll ow s:

I N THE CI RCUI T COURT FOR DI CKSON COUNTY,

TENNESSEE AT CHARL OTTE J ANUARY TE RM GRAND J URY, 2003

The Gr and Jurors for the State of Tenne ssee, duly

elec ted, impaneled, sw orn, a ndc ha rg e d to inq uire, in a ndfo r the bo dy of the Cou nty

of Di c ks on in the Sta te
a fo re sa id, up on the ir oa ths , pre se nt: Th a t WILBUR LEON DECK , JR. here tofore, to- wi t: o n o r a

bo ut Ja nu a

ry 18 , 2 00 2, a ndpr ior to the fi nd ing of thi s Pr e se ntm e nt, in the county of Dickson a fore said, then and the re, did unlaw fully , while under the influence of an intoxi cant, marijuana , narc otic drug , or drug producing stimul ating
e ff e c ts on the c e ntr a l ne rv ou s sy ste m, dr ive a nd /or ph y sic a lly

c on tr ol a n auto mob ile or other motor dr iven vehicle upon any of the public roa ds and hig hway s of the state, or any streets or alley , or while on the premises of any shopping c enter , trailer pa rk or any apartment c omplex or any other premises which is g ener ally fre quented by the pu bli c a t larg e , in vio la tio n of T. C.A

. 55 -1 0- 40 1, a nd ha vin g be e n p revio us ly
c on vic te d o f a

lik e of fe ns e in the fo llo wi ng c a se , to -w it:

1. On the 25 Ma y , 2 00 0, in the Hu mph re y s Co unty Ge ne ra l Se ssi on s Co urt, th Waverly , TN, under

docket number

15301-00 of sa id Court.

Wherefor e, the Gr and Jurors afore said, upon their oath a fore said, do here by indict the said WILBUR LE ON DECK , JR. for the 2nd offe nse of driving while under t he influence of an intoxi cant, in v i o l ation of T.C .A . 5 5- 10 -4 01 , a Cl as s A Misdem eanor , all of whic h is ag ainst the pea ce a nd dignity of the State of Tenne ssee.
The file sta mp on the prese ntment indicates that i t was filed on Dec ember 18, 2002, 4:35 p.m., and the pr e se ntm e nt i s si g ne d b y the g ra ndjur or s. Th e De fe nd a nt co nte nd s tha t the pr e se ntm e nt m us t be dismissed b ec au s e it was filed on D ece mber 18, 2002, but states that it was issued dur ing the J a n u ar y, 2 0 0 3 t e r m o f

t h e D i c k s o n C o u n t y G r a n d J u r y. We respec tfully

disag ree with the Def

endant’ s contention. This issue came squa rely befor e the Ten nes se e Sup re me Cou rt ma ny y e ars a g o, bu t th e op ini on the n d e liv e re d b y the Cou rt

is s til l g ood law today

. I n Mitchell v. The State, 16 Te nn. 514 (Tenn. 1835) , the def endant c ontended that the indictment a g ainst him c ould not stand beca use “the indictment is entitled as of the Marc h term of Jackson circuit court, 1832, when the c aption of the re cord shows tha t the court sat in April.” The Cou rt the n s ta te d, “ Th e sta te me nt of the te rm of the c ou rt , w hic h is pu t a t th e he a d o f this ind ic tme nt, is no part of it . . . . but is a formal state ment of t he procee dings, . . . which occ ur pre viouslyto the-4-

introduct i o n o f t h e indictment . . . . [ T]he words ‘Mar ch ter m,’ at the top of this indictment, are wh oll y imm a te ri a l a ndma y

be dis re g ard e d. ” I d. a t 52 7- 28 . So me fo rt y y e ars la te r, the Cou rt

a g a in addre ssed this issue in Firb y v

. T h e S t at e, 62 Te nn. 358 (Tenn. 1874) . I n that case the Court
su mma ri zedthe fa c ts a s f

oll ow s:
The indictment is entitled of the S eptember Term, 1873, by mistake of t he dra ftsman,
or in makin g ou t the tr a ns c ri pt. B ut the re c or d sho ws that the Gr a nd Jury wa s d uly [empaneled] at the J anuary Term, 1874, and that on the 7th day of J anuary , 1874, one of the da y s o f said Ter m, they came into open Court, and pre sented this bill of indictment.

I d. at 360. The Court then state d:
Up on i t s f

a c e t h e i n d i c t m e n t c h ar g e s t h a t t h e o f f e n [s ]e w a s c o m m i t t e d o n t he 24 th day of Oc tober, 1873; seve ral months, as shown by the re cord be fore the finding of the indictment. We are of [the] opinion, therefor e, that the re cord suf ficiently shows that th e a c tio n of the Gr a nd Jury wa s ha d up on the ind ic tme nt at th e Janu ary Te rm , 1874, of said Criminal Court; and the statement of the wrong Term of the Court at the hea d of the indictment is no part of it, and doe s not vitiate it, the r ecor d showing when it w a s f

o u n d

. M it c h e ll v

. T h e St a te , [8 T e n n

. ] 5 2 7

- 2 8

. Se e a ls o M ’ B e a n v. St a te , [5 0 T e n n

. 2 0 ( 1 8 7 0 ) ].

I d. More r ece ntly , this court has stated, “ The e rrone ous statement of a n incorre ct term of court at the top of the indi ct m en t is imm ater ial and does not invalidate an indictment wher e the c aption shows the term at which the indictment is pref err ed.” J anow v. State, 567 S.W .2d 483, 484 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978); see a lso Hart v. State, 21 S.W .3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000) (stating “So long a s an indictment performs its essential constitut ional and statutory purposes, a

defe ct or omission in the lang uag e of the indictment will not render the judg ment void.”) (c itations omi tted).

I n acc ordanc e with these f oreg oing a

u t horities, we c onclude that the inc orre ct term of the g rand jury

articula ted in the ca

ption of the prese ntment this case is not fatal. The pre sentment met
c on sti tut ion a l a ndsta tut ory sta nd ard s b y

pr ov idi ng theDe fe nd a nt n oti c e of the c ha rg e s ag a ins t hi m. We further

conclude that the incorr ec t t er m of the court at the top of the pre sentment does not inval i d at e i t because the stateme nt of the term of the court is not part of the pre sentment and, there fore , may

be disreg arde d.

III. Conclusi on
Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is AFF I RMED.

___________________________________-5- ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE