WPC # UN % 0(!Iw@Q4U: 0J 0T8 0^ 0h 0rR 0| 0@ 0 1uV 0dU>/U*mv~v HP DeskJet PrintersHPDSKJET,,,,0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ }~EEE*e~3!(|3|x,rAZ"Arial Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(ArialPtPtHHHV,(hh hd'0F Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! .   ݛ       X \RA'\\RA'\7  XXdd7 @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE @ ATJACKSON @ GREGORYL.HATTON,   )       )   Petitioner,    ) C.C.A.NO.02C019611CC00407       )  ̀vs.      )LAKECOUNTY        )  STATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) No. 967547       )   Respondent.    )        @ ORDER   ThismatterisbeforetheCourtuponthestatesmotiontoaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtunderRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.ThecasebeforethisCourtrepresentsanappealfromthetrialcourtsdenialofthepetitionerspetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.TherecordwasfiledonNovember14,1996,andthepetitionerfiledhisbriefonDecember12,1996.Thoughtherecorddoesnotcontaintheindictmentatissue,therebyprecludingtheCourtfromconductinganadequatereview,thepetitionerassertsinhisbriefthathewasoriginallyindictedforrapeinJuly1977,andwassubsequentlyconvictedofthesame.Inthepresentappeal,thepetitioner,relyinginpartuponStatev.RogerDaleHill,No.01C019508CC00267(Tenn.Crim.App.June20,1996),contendsthejudgmententeredagainsthimisvoidbecausetheindictmentfailedtoallegethemensreaoftheoffensecharged.  Havingreviewedthestatesmotioninlightofthepetitionersresponseandtheentirerecordonappeal,weconcludethatthemotioniswelltakenandshouldbegranted.Thetrialjudgedismissedthepetitionerspetitionstatingthat [a]llegationsconcerningthesufficiencyofanindictmentarenotsubjecttohabeascorpusrelief.Itiswellestablishedthatchallengestothesufficiencyofanindictmentcannotbetestedinahabeascorpusproceeding.SeeHaggardv.State,475S.W.2d186,187(Tenn.Crim.App.1971);Brownv.State,445S.W.2d669,674(Tenn.Crim.App.1969).ApanelofthisCourtrecentlyheldthesameinacapitalcase.Barberv.State,No.01C019408CR00281(Tenn.Crim.App.,Feb.23,1995).  Nonetheless,wehaveconsideredthesubstanceofthepetitionersclaimanddetermineittobewithoutmerit.Hillrepresentsadirectappealfromacaseinvolvinganindictmentrenderedsubsequenttothe1989revisionstotheCriminalCode.Conversely,theappealinthepresentcasestemsfromadenialofapetitionforwritofhabeascorpusandinvolvesanindictmentissuedpriortothe1989changesintheCode.TheopinioninHillwasbaseduponthisCourtsinterpretationofT.C.A.3911301(c),whichwasenactedin1989.Thatstatuteprovides,inpertinentpart,that [a]culpablementalstateisrequiredwithinthistitleunlessthedefinitionoftheoffenseplainlydispenseswithamentalelement.Priorto1989,however,theCriminalCodedidnotcontainacomparablestatute.Accordingly,thedecisioninHilldoesnotcontrolourreviewoftheissueraisedherein.  Atthetimeoftheoffenseinthiscase,rapewasdefinedas unlawfulsexualpenetrationofanotheraccompaniedbyanyofthefollowingcircumstances,includingtheuseofforceorcoercion.T.C.A.393705(1981Supp.).Theindictmentatissuebeforeusapparentlychargedthatthepetitionerdid unlawfully,feloniously,andcarnallyknowacertainfemale...forciblyandagainstherwill.Thislanguagewassufficientunderthelawasitexistedatthetime.Asnotedabove,theCriminalCodedidnotcontainaprovisionsimilarto3911301(c)(1989).Thestatutoryrequirementsforanindictmentwerefoundin401802(now4013202(1990)),whichprovidedsimplythat:8  Theindictmentmuststatethefactsconstitutingtheoffenseinordinaryandconciselanguage,withoutprolixityorrepetition,insuchamannerastoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowwhatisintended,andwiththatdegreeofcertaintywhichwillenablethecourt,onconviction,topronouncetheproperjudgment.Furthermore,inCampbellv.State,491S.W.2d359,361(Tenn.1973)(emphasissupplied),whileaddressingthesufficiencyofanindictmentchargingtheoffenseofmurder,ourSupremeCourtstatedthefollowing:8  WhileitseemsclearthattheindictmentinWittwasinsufficientinthatitfailedtochargeanelement,thatthemurderwascommittedunlawfully,ineitherthelanguageofthestatuteorcommonlaworwordsofequivalentimport,thedecisionisconfusingbecauseofthelanguage,fatallydefectiveinomittingthechargethattheoffensewascommittedfeloniously,orwithmaliceaforethought;andcontainingnowordsofequivalentimport.Itisclear,however,thathadtheindictmentusedthewordsfeloniouslyorunlawfully,itwouldhavebeensufficient.Weagreewiththisproposition.Bycontainingthewordsfoundinthelanguageofthestatute,theindictmentatissueheresufficientlyapprisedtheappellantoftheoffensechargedunderthelawatthetime,andisthereforevalid.Thus,thepetitionersattackmustfail.  Forthereasonsstatedabove,itisherebyORDERED,pursuanttoRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals,thatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissingthepetitionforwritofhabeascorpusisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealshallbeassessedagainstthepetitioner.  Enter,thisthe___dayofFebruary,1997.      __________________________________      JOEB.JONES,PRESIDINGJUDGE      __________________________________      PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE      __________________________________      DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE