Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
Assigned on Briefs September 28, 2011 WILLIE D. ROBINSON v. DAVID R. OSBORNE, WARDEN
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Morgan County No. 2010-CR-102 E. Eugene Eblen, Judge

No. E2011-00779-CCA-R3-HC - Filed December 5, 2011

The Petitioner, Willie D. Robinson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery and received a sentence of life imprisonment. He subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Morgan County Criminal Court, which was summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the indictment charging him with first degree felony murder was so defective as to deprive the convicting court of jurisdiction to impose judgment. Upon review, we affirm the judgment summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed C AMILLE R. M CM ULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VERETT W ILLIAMS and D. K ELLY T HOMAS, J R., JJ., joined. Willie D. Robinson, Wartburg, Tennessee, Pro Se. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; John H. Bledsoe, Senior Counsel, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Background. Following his conviction for first degree felony murder, the Petitioner filed a direct appeal, and this court affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Willie D. Robinson, No. 02C01-9509-CR-00264, 1996 WL 417662, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, July 26, 1996), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Feb. 3, 1997). On October 12, 2010, the Petitioner filed a writ for habeas corpus in the Morgan County Criminal Court, claiming that his judgment was void based on a defective indictment. The State filed a motion to dismiss, and the Petitioner filed a response. On February 14, 2011, the habeas corpus court

summarily dismissed his petition. The Petitioner then filed a timely notice of appeal. ANALYSIS On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the indictment charging him with felony murder was so defective as to deprive the convicting court of jurisdiction to impose judgment. Specifically, he contends that the indictment failed to specify the intent required for the underlying offense of robbery. In response, the State argues that the habeas corpus court did not err in summarily dismissing the petition. We agree with the State. "The determination of whether habeas corpus relief should be granted is a question of law." Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000)). Therefore, our review of the habeas corpus court's decision is "de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded to the [habeas corpus] court." Id. at 361 (citing Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 205 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tenn. 2006)). A prisoner is guaranteed the right to habeas corpus relief under Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution. See also T. C. A.

Download robinsonwiillieopn.pdf

Tennessee Law