Montez Adams v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
M2016-01073-CCA-R3-HC
Tenn. Crim. App.Feb 13, 2017Background
- Montez Adams was indicted in 1996 on four counts including felony murder (during especially aggravated burglary) and was convicted; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Adams unsuccessfully pursued post-conviction relief and then filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the felony murder count of the indictment.
- Count One quoted language describing the killing as done "unlawfully and recklessly" during the perpetration of especially aggravated burglary and cited Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202.
- The applicable felony-murder statute (as amended effective July 1, 1995) defined felony murder as a reckless killing and required no culpable mental state except intent to commit the underlying felony; Adams argued the indictment’s mens rea language was incorrect and deprived him of notice.
- The trial court summarily dismissed the habeas petition; Adams appealed and the State moved to affirm under CCA Rule 20.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the indictment provided sufficient notice despite outdated or surplus mens rea language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the felony-murder count of the indictment was void for using incorrect mens rea ("reckless") | Adams: Inclusion of "reckless" rendered the indictment insufficient and void for lack of notice | State: Indictment cited the correct statute and supplied adequate notice; surplus or outdated language is not fatal | Court: The indictment was sufficient; habeas relief not available because the defect did not render the judgment void |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2001) (habeas relief limited to void judgments)
- Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1998) (indictment defects that deprive jurisdiction justify habeas relief)
- State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997) (requirements an indictment must satisfy)
- Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn. 1998) (relaxed common-law pleading strictures)
- State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145 (Tenn. 1999) (reference to statute that sets forth mens rea can cure omission in indictment)
- State v. Hammonds, 30 S.W.3d 294 (Tenn. 2000) (indictment sufficient if it accomplishes its notice function)