WPC. JeM8w*tGWkT/x M5vl>&Ǔ^Ыv-^SlbNSh10/<c}n"eUjX*AfN֛ň"KF& >s3G򝣡$М7qב`Ne jכ0Ӗt/ה*fnJ3` h|p -/;D(6SD@P֠t9cs]9DKo%ƆbhCE6@;s6 բہ`ڸsvĺE,W=|؟mB[=LBNgIj:\٤+O1n?ܟ+sNZ$ZGn)f@&Rw y$8~c+ qveCs PvD)ud_ـv3^]بh=lh' ]vJb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz U,   I U@NEb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0)))) B 01 D5 D-  0K77 AS 0 0D? AHP LaserJet 40500, (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*\P:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU,cAZArial Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(hH  Z(Times New Roman  - -(|G2j$ !.8Jdd8         0  ] d(|3G$ !.8Jdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Jdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Jdd8     __   J8aXXdd8@ttJJINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#JJ#Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsFebruary26,2002 L XaXJ #JXXa2#JACKIEWILLIAM_CROWE_v.STATEOFTENNESSEEXaXJ  J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtfor_McMinn_ԀCounty  J @@No.98034CarrollL.Ross,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200101559CCAR3PCFiledApril22,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XaXXXaJackieW._Crowe_Ԁappealsfromthe_McMinn_ԀCountyCriminalCourtsdenialofhispostconviction x  motiontodismisstheindictmentsagainsthim._Crowe_,whoisincarceratedintheDepartmentof d Correctiononconvictionsofrapeandincest,isproceedingprose.Becausehehasalreadyexhausted P hisoneopportunityforpostconvictionreliefandbecausehismotiondoesnotcomplywiththe < requirementsforahabeascorpusproceeding,wedismisstheappeal.#XaXXXa##JXXa#XaXJ (x   Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealDismissed.  P   #JXa#XaX.JJames_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJerryL.Smithand ( RobertW._Wedemeyer_,JJ.,joined.  JackieWilliam_Crowe_,Appellant,ProSe.  MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;ChristineM._Lapps_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;andJerryN. t _Estes_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. ` @@OO& OPINION #JXXa#XaXJ 8!  #JXXa #  XaXJ0   X XXXa (#(# #XaX X XF #XaXXXa   ` JackieW._Crowe_Ԁwasconvictedoftwocountsofrapeandtwocountsofincestinthe #@# _McMinn_ԀCountyCriminalCourt.SeeStatev.Jackie_Crowe_,No.03C019606CR00331,slipop. $, $ at2(Tenn._Crim_.App.,Knoxville,Oct.8,1997)( _Crowe_ԀI),perm.app.denied(Tenn.1998).He %!% wassentencedtoa24yearterm,whichheispresentlyservingintheDepartmentofCorrection.See &"& id.Hethereafterfiledapetitionforpostconvictionreliefallegingthathedidnotreceivethe '"' effectiveassistanceofcounselattrialandondirectappeal.JackieWilliam_Crowe_Ԁv.State,No. (#( E199800016CCAR3PC,slipop.at12(Tenn._Crim_.App.,Knoxville,June20,2000)( _Crowe_ x)$) II),perm.app.denied(Tenn.2001).Thatpetitionwasheardonitsmeritsandreliefwasdenied. d*%* Seegenerallyid.Thepetitionerthenfileda MotiontoDismiss,inwhichheallegedvarious P+&+ infirmitiesrelativetotheindictmentunderlyinghisconvictions.The_McMinn_ԀCountyCriminal <,', Courtdismissedthemotion,holdingthattheissuesraisedthereinwerepreviouslydeterminedinthe (-x(-  _postconvictionproceeding.Crowethenfiledthisappeal,andthematterisnowbeforeusfor  disposition.     ` ThisRule3appealofthedenialofthe MotiontoDismississubjecttosummary t dismissal.Rule3doesnotauthorizearightfulappealfromthedenialofa motiontodismissthat ` wasfiledafterthecriminalconvictionbecamefinal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.3(b):Coxv.State,53S. L  W.3d287,293(Tenn.Crim.App.2001)(useofformofactionthatdoesnotconformtoRule3(b) 8   deprivestheclaimantofarightfulappeal).However,resolutionofthiscaserequiresustoconsider $ t whetherthepetitionersinartful MotiontoDismissmaybeconsideredasanactionunderthePost  ` ConvictionProceduresActorasapetitionerforthewritofhabeascorpus,causesofactionthe  L  dismissalofwhichareappealablepursuanttoRule3(b).SeeCox,53S.W.3dat294.  8     ` Asapostconvictionproceeding,themotionisineffectual.Thepetitionerhasalready   prosecutedapostconvictionproceedingtoitsconclusion,andheisentitledtodosoonlyonce.See   Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(c)(1997).Moreover,hehasneitherfollowedtheprocedurefornor   statedanadequatebasisforreopeninghispriorpostconvictionpetition.Seeid.4030217(1997).   Thus,themotionisnotcognizableasapostconvictionclaim. p    ` Althoughthemotiondoes,onitsface,allegefactsthatmightsupportaclaimof H indictmentvoidnessaswouldbecognizableinapetitionforthewritofhabeascorpus,themotion 4 wasnotfiledinthepropervenueforahabeascorpusaction.UnderCodesection2921105,a  p petitionforthewritofhabeascorpusmustbefiledwith thecourtorjudgemostconvenientinpoint  \ ofdistancetotheapplicant,unlessasufficientreasonbegiveninthepetitionfornotapplyingto H suchcourtorjudge.Tenn.CodeAnn.2921105(2000).Generally,thisisinthecountywhere 4 thepetitionerisincarcerated.See,e.g.,Lewisv.MetropolitanGen.SessionsCt.,949S.W.2d696,   700(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).The motiontodismisswasfiledinMcMinnCounty;however,the   recordreflectsthatCroweisincarceratedinBledsoeCounty.Also,the motiondoesnotcomply  withthedraftingrequirementsforapetitionseekingthewritofhabeascorpus.SeeTenn.Code  Ann.2921107(2000).Thus,themotionwasnotproperlytreatableasapetitionforawritof  habeascorpus.SeeCox,53S.W.3dat292. l    ` Furthermore,hadthesufficiencyofindictmentissuesbeenbroughtintheproper D! venue,therecordofthiscasewouldrequirethattheybedenied.Thechallengedcountsofthe 0"  indictmentaresufficient. #l!    ` Crowefirstclaimsthat countoneisinsufficientbecauseitisnotdenominatedas $D #  number#1.However,weareunawareofanyauthoritythatwouldrequiresuchdenominationin %0!$ orderforadefendanttobeinformedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusationagainsthim.See &"% generallyU.S.Const.amends.VI,XIV;Tenn.Const.art.1,9;Wyattv.State,24S.W.3d319,324 '#& (Tenn.2000).    h    (#'    ` Crowealsoclaimsthattheindictmentsallegationsamounttolegalconclusions |*%) withoutastatementofthefactsandcircumstancesofthecrimeandthattheessentialelementsofthe h+&* offensesarenotalleged.Ourreviewofthecharginginstrumentdisprovestheseclaims.See  generallyWyatt,24S.W.3dat324.     ` Crowecomplainsthatcountstwoandfouroftheindictmentareduplicativeand t thereforeviolatedoublejeopardyproscriptions.Countstwoandfouraretheincestcounts. ` Althoughthesecountsreadidentically,theyallegeaoneyeartimeperiodduringwhich,aswas L  provenattrial,multipleoffensesoccurred.SeegenerallyCroweI,slipop.at23. 8     ` Crowealsocomplainsthattheindictmentsdonotdemonstratethattheoffenseswere  ` committedwithinthejurisdictionofthecourt.Thisisasomewhatconvolutedallegationwhich  L  appearstorelatetoproofattrialthatsexualmisconductoccurredbothinMeigsCountyandMcMinn  8  County.TheindictmentitselfallegesthattheoffensesoccurredinMcMinnCounty,whichis $  obviouslywithinthejurisdictionoftheMcMinnCountyCriminalCourt.Thus,noinsufficiencyof   theindictmentexists.Totheextentthatthisissueisacomplaintabouttheproofallowedattrial,the   issueisbeyondthescopeofhabeascorpusproceedings.      ` Forthesereasons,Crowewouldnotbeentitledtohabeascorpusrelief,evenifhehad p filedaproperpleadinginthepropercourt. \    ` Inclosing,wemustcommentuponCrowesattempttoraiseadditionalissuesinhis 4 appellatebriefthatwerenotthesubjectofthemotionhefiledinthelowercourt.Itisawellsettled  p principlethatthiscourtwillnotconsiderissuesraisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.See,e.g.,State  \ v.Turner,919S.W.2d346,35657(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Moreover,totheextentthatthese H issuescouldhavebeenraisedinpriorproceedingsbutwerenot,theyarewaived.See,e.g.,Tenn. 4 CodeAnn.4030206(g)(1997).      ` Inconclusion,wedismisstheappealandtherebyaffirmthelowercourtsdenialof  Crowes MotiontoDismiss.     ` Wewilltaxcostsoftheappealtothepetitioner.TennesseeRuleofAppellate l Procedure40(a)providesthat ifanappealisdismissedor ifajudgmentisaffirmed,[appellate] X  costsshallbetaxedagainsttheappellant,unlesstheappellatecourtotherwiseorders.Tenn.R. D! App.P.40(a)(emphasisadded).Thiscourthasoften otherwiseorderedwhentherecordofthe 0"  lowercourtproceedingdemonstratedthatthelowercourtdeterminedthattheappellantwas #l!  indigent,meaningthatthepersonhadinsufficient meanstopayreasonablecompensationforthe $X" servicesofacompetentattorney.Tenn.CodeAnn.4014201(1997).Inotherwords,whenthe $D # recordonappealshowedthatthecourtbelowfoundthecriminaldefendantorpetitionerappellant %0!$ tobeindigent,asadispensationwehaveoftenexcusedtheappellantfrompayingappellatecourt &"% costs,evenifthiscourtaffirmedthelowercourtsjudgment.SeeLarryC.Corumv.State,No. '#& E200001076CCAOTCD,slipop.at2(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,July5,2000)(order).In (#' thepresentcase,theissueofthepetitioners indigencywasnotraisedbelowandwasnotaddressed )$( bythelowercourtinthiscauseofaction.Becausetherecordcontainsnobasisforusgrantingthe |*%) dispensation,weinvokeRule40(a)asitwasintendedtoapplyintaxingappellatecostsupon h+&* dismissaloftheappealoraffirmanceofthelowercourt.Again,inthosesituations,theappellantis  liableforpayingappellatecourtcosts.     `     h     ___________________________________ L     `     h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE