Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 1998 SESSION

FILED
October 23, 1998

WILLIAM A. RANSOM, Appellant, VS. KEVIN MYERS, WARDEN, and STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appellees.

* * * * * *

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk # 01C01-9708-CC-00328 DAVIDSON COUNTY Hon. J. Randall W yatt, Jr., Judge (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus)

For Appellant: William A. Ransom, Pro Se # 98835, Gemini B-A 110 CCA/SCCC P.O. Box 279 Clifton, TN 38425-0279

For Appellees: John Knox Walkup Attorney General & Reporter Lisa A. Naylor Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

OPINION FILED: __________________

AFFIRMED

GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE

OPINION The petitioner, William A. Ransom, was convicted of robbery and, because he qualified as a habitual criminal, he received a life sentence. This court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. State v. William Ransom, [no number in original] (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 15, 1984). In this petition for habeas corpus, the petitioner claims that the indictment for robbery and the declaration of habitual criminality is void because the indictment failed to assert the requisite mens rea. It is the initial contention of the petitioner that, due to the faulty indictment, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a conviction or impose a sentence. Secondly, the petitioner claims that the trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel or to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I On June 10, 1997, the petitioner filed this petition for habeas corpus relief alleging deficiencies in each count of the indictment based upon the ruling of this court in State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June 20, 1996), rev'd, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997). While the state failed to respond to the petition, the trial court entered a summary order of dismissal.

A writ of habeas corpus may be granted only when the petitioner has established lack of jurisdiction for the order of confinement or that he is otherwise entitled to immediate release because of the expiration of his sentence. See Ussery v. Avery, 432 S.W.2d 656 (Tenn. 1968); State ex rel. Wade v. Norvell, 443 S.W.2d 839 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969). Habeas corpus relief is available in this state only when it appears on the face of the judgment or the record that the trial court was

2

without jurisdiction to convict or sentence the defendant or that the sentence of imprisonment has otherwise expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993); Potts v. State, 833 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992). The validity of an indictment may be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding, "where the indictment is so defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction." Dykes v. Compton, ___ S.W.2d ___, No. 02-S-01-9711-CC-00105, slip op. at 2 (Tenn., at Nashville, Sept. 21, 1998).

Tennessee Code Annotated

Download ransomwa.pdf

Tennessee Law