WPCd 1# UN % 0(Ew@M4U: BU@eG 0JH 0T 0D 0^* 0h 0r 0|( AQ 0D 09 0 1uO 0d 0@( D3h U> D/ U* B2 B)O DCx AM   v~vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  EӀzz!(|3|x,rAZ"Arial Regular d `(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  (3$ !  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  ԃLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  $(C<< C($$   1  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$     'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman**' dxd<  9p`(ArialP Pd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd$,C << G  !  #d#'  "  '  ) eee FILED)X )"US ,   !  )X CecilCrowson,Jr.     ) eee AppellateCourtClerk     XPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . '         X \RA'\)\RA'\7  XXdd7ћ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE @ ATJACKSON @ ROYL.MORRIS,JR.,   )       )   Petitioner,    ) C.C.A.NO.02C019610CC00329 ̜R-.,A1-j|x `@Rߛ      )  ̀vs.      )LAKECOUNTY        )  STATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) No. 967515       )   Respondent.    )        @ ORDER   ThismatterisbeforetheCourtuponthestatesmotiontoaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtunderRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.ThecasebeforethisCourtrepresentsanappealfromthetrialcourtsdenialofthepetitionerspetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.TherecordwasfiledonOctober3,1996,andthepetitionerfiledhisbriefonOctober23,1996.ThepetitionerwasoriginallyindictedforaggravatedrapeinNovember1988,andwasconvictedofthesameinAugust1989.Inthepresentappeal,thepetitioner,relyinginpartuponStatev.RogerDaleHill,No.01C019508CC00267(Tenn.Crim.App.June20,1996),contendsthejudgmententeredagainsthimisvoidbecausetheindictmentfailedtoallegethemensreaoftheoffensecharged.  Havingreviewedthestatesmotioninlightofthepetitionersresponseandtheentirerecordonappeal,weconcludethatthemotioniswelltakenandshouldbegranted.Thetrialjudgedismissedthepetitionerspetitionstatingthat thisisnotthepropersubjectofhabeascorpusrelief.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,aggravatedrapewasdefinedasthe unlawfulsexualpenetrationofanotheraccompaniedbycertainenumeratedaggravatingcircumstances,includingthatthevictimislessthanthirteen(13)yearsold.T.C.A.392603(1982).Theindictmentatissuebeforeuschargedthatthepetitioner didunlawfullyandfeloniouslysexuallypenetrate...achildlessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage.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___dayofJanuary,1997.      __________________________________      JOEB.JONES,PRESIDINGJUDGE      __________________________________      PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE      __________________________________      DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE