# FILED
March 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE DECEMB ER SESSION, 1997 JERRY W. BURTON, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9704-CR-00122 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON.LYNN BROWN STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)

ON APPEA L FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF JOHNSON COUN TY
FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : JERRY W. B URTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney Generaland Reporter MICH AEL J . FAHE Y, II Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243 DAVID CROCKETT Distri ct Attorney General Route 19, Box 99 Johnson City, 37601
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE-2- 

# ORDER

The Appellant appeals as of right f rom the trial court’s dismissal of hi s pro se petiti on for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. It appears from the petition an d exhibits filedtherewith that the Appel lantwas convicted of crimi nal sexual conduct in the first degree, assault with i ntent to commit murder, ki dnapping and armed robbery and sentenced to l ife impri sonment plustwenty -four ye ars in 1979. On August 30, 1996 , the Ap pellan t filed the instan t habe as co rpus p etition a lleging that his judgm ents of con viction w ere vo id bec ause the ind ictme nt fail ed to ad equa tely allegethe culpable mental state r equired of each offense c harged
. The trial court dismissed the petiti on. We conclude that the Appellant is not ent itled t

o habeas corpu s relief a nd we therefo re affirm the trial c ourt’s o rder of dism issal.

In support of h is peti tion and argument , the Appell ant reli es primarily upon the decision of

this Court

in State v. Rog er Da le Hill , C.C.A. No. 01C01- 9508- CC00267, Wa yne Co unty, (Te nn. Crim. Ap p., Nashvill e, June 20, 1996). We first note that thi s Court’s decision in Hill was based upon an interpretati on of our new cri minal co de, and thi s code is appl icable only to offenses occurri ng after November 1, 19 89. Se cond ly, our su prem e cou rt has re verse d this C ourt’s decision i n Hill

. See State v. Hill , 954 S.W .2d 725 (Te nn. 1997).

In the case sub judice , we have examined thelanguage of t he challenged indict ment and we conclude that the indi ctment adequately alleged the criminal offensescharged and sufficient ly informed the Appellant of the charg es against him such thatthe convic ting court had j urisdic tion. We see no reason for furt her-3-

discussionor analys is. The A ppellant’s conviction s are no t void. Se e Charles Edward Orren v. S tate , C.C.A. N o. 03C01 -9704-C R-001 41, Joh nson C ounty (Tenn. Crim. App., Knox vill e, Feb. 13 , 1998); Georg e F. Jon es, Jr. v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01-970 2 -CR-0 0062, J ohnso n Cou nty (Ten n. Crim. A pp., K noxvill e, Feb. 3, 1 998); Randy Blaine Knight v. Carlton, Warden , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00162, Johnson Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Knoxvill e, Jan. 26, 1998); Perry C . Riley v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01- 9705 -CR-00181, Morgan Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Kno xville, Jan. 23 , 1 998); Roy A. B urch v. Sta te , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9610-CR-00 391, J ohnso n Cou nty, (Ten n. Crim. A pp., Knoxvill e, Jan. 16, 1 998); State v. Dare l G. Bolin , C.C. A. No. 03C01- 9212- CR00450, Cum berland Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Kno xville, Jan. 15 , 1998); Joseph Ron ald Duclos v. State , C.C. A. No. 03 C01-9 705-C R-001 82, Mor gan C ounty (Tenn. Crim. App ., Knoxville, Jan. 16, 199 8); State v. Rogers L. McKinl ey , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9612-CR-00455, Bledsoe C ounty; (Tenn. Crim. App. , Knoxvil le, Jan. 6, 1998); TimothyWayne Johnson v. Bowlen,Warden , C.C.A. No. 03C01- 9611- CR-00443, Bledsoe Coun ty(Tenn . Crim. A pp., Kno xville, Dec. 23 , 1997); Darryl Douglas Sheets v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9701-CR-00031, Johnso n Coun ty (Tenn. Crim. App., Knox vill e, Dec. 23, 199 7) ; Jerry Co x v. State ,C.C.A. No. 03C01-9610-CR-00392, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxvill e, Dec. 23, 1997); Bruce B elk v. State , C.C.A. N o. 03C 01-970 3-CR -00109 , Morga n Cou nty (Tenn. Crim. App., Knox vill e, Dec. 23, 1997); Abel R odrigue z, Jr. v. State ,C.C. A. No. 03C01-9612-CR-00463, Greene Co unty (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxvil le, Dec. 23, 1997); Donald Wayne Hol t v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01- 9702-CR-00059, Johnson County

(Tenn. Crim. Ap p., Knoxvi lle, Dec. 23 , 1997; Gene H ibbard v. State , C.C. A. No . 03C0 1-9702 -CR-0 0077, K nox Co unty (Te nn. Crim . App., Knoxville, Dec. 23 , 1997).-4- We conc lude th at no e rror of la w requ irin g a rev ersal o f the jud gme nt is apparenton the re cord. Ba sed up on a tho rough re ading o f the record , the briefs ofthe parti es, and the l aw gover ning the issues pr esented for r

eview, t he judgmentof the tria l court is affirme d in ac corda nce w ith Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeal s of Tennessee.

____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE