WPC. /# UN % 0()w@14qU: 0J 0T 0^l 0h 0r2 0| 0  0 1u6 0dU> U*M 0@w D3 B B) DC0 AMs 2 v~ vp AQC 0DZ 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  EeEEDӀzz!(|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`(Arial("$    """"'dxd d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd* $C << G ( !  #d#  +"     YYY FILEDX April28,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva *+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd ! .   ݛ       X \RA'\\RA'\7 L XXdd7ќ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE @ ATJACKSON @ RICKYGENEWILLIAMS,   )       )   Petitioner,    ) C.C.A.NO.02C019701CC00017 ̜*R%&$A1-j|`  `@Rߛ      )  ̀vs.      )LAKECOUNTY        )  FREDRANEY,WARDEN,  ) No. 967572       )   Respondent.    )        @ ORDER   ThismatterisbeforetheCourtuponthestatesmotiontoaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtunderRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.ThecasebeforethisCourtrepresentsanappealfromthetrialcourtsdenialofthepetitionerspetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.TherecordwasfiledonJanuary14,1997,andthepetitionerfiledhisbriefonFebruary27,1997.ThepetitionerwasoriginallyindictedonfourcountsaggravatedrapeinAugust1983,andwassubsequentlyfoundguiltyofthesame.Inthepresentappeal,thepetitioner,relyinginpartuponStatev.RogerDaleHill,No.01C019508CC00267(Tenn.Crim.App.June20,1996),contendsthejudgmententeredagainsthimisvoidbecausetheindictmentfailedtoallegethemensreaoftheoffensecharged.  Havingreviewedthestatesmotioninlightofthepetitionersresponseandtheentirerecordonappeal,weconcludethatthemotioniswelltakenandshouldbegranted.Thetrialjudgedismissedthepetitionerspetitionstatingthat [a]llegationsconcerningtheinsufficiencyofanindictmentarenotsubjecttohabeascorpusrelief.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,includingthat [f]orceorcoercionisusedtoaccomplishtheactandthedefendantisarmedwithaweapon, [t]hedefendantcausespersonalinjurytothevictim,or [t]hedefendantisaidedorabettedbyoneormoreotherpersonsandforceorcoercionisusedtoaccomplishtheact..T.C.A.392603(1982).Theindictmentatissuebeforeuschargedthatthepetitioner didunlawfullyandfeloniouslyaccomplishsexualpenetrationupon[thevictim]throughtheuseofforceorcoercion...whilebeingaidedorabettedbyanotherpersonandwhilearmedwithaknifeandcausingpersonalinjurytothe[victim].  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___dayofApril,1997.      __________________________________      PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE      __________________________________      DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE      __________________________________      JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE