WPCE QQGȥ}c8çgѯ2U$U3) `Am,|U ɸqvؕ^樤,HF4;=q= zĦB8ו;(;V1jnk+o}X\$*>H*WR$.‘ϣ$IH׈nT5/s9j1V3z[ KӉ]0_E@."ԝĿT 9arx#b@d&o{n2˱%VNkCm~J'mdfx0qiyJu!ɐ(JH>c,{Ks8Ӷ؎'o hΤLb )1J$hqw! WP. u"3grWUn-f2QZ!1vL`8t( y= X׳l_1g{NѠ_')O*%f'b %\UNb 0UN8^ & z2  w~ 4    m 3  mN#E= 0Db:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 0BBBB B-- 0J D3 D-! 0KNN AS 0 0DV A(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  R$      2    _Weacknowledgethat,inHart,oursupremecourtwasnotdirectlypresentedwiththequestionofwhetherthe  indictmentwasvoidforfailingtostateanessentialelementoftheoffense,namelythatthesexualpenetrationwas t unlawful.}\/  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.wptb.:i+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk3,,,,0 e  3 R$      1    _WewouldpointoutafatalflawwithintheDefendantsargument.Inhisbrief,hestates, Itisthereforetrue  thatunlawfulinthesecrimes(includingChildRape),meansessentiallythelackofconsentofthevictimeitherthrough t forceorcoercionorotherdefectinthevictimsuchasageofthevictimormentaldefect.(Emphasisadded).Therefore, 8 accordingtotheDefendantsreasoning,theelementofunlawfulnesswouldhavebeenproperlyallegedintheindictment L bystatingthatthevictimwaslessthanthirteenyearsoldandwasthereforeincapableofgivingherconsent.(#$  0  - -(|G2$ !.8]mdd8         0   d(|3~$ !.8]mdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3~$ !.8]mdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8]mdd8     _   ]m8XXdd8O@ttP8]mINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#]mP8#Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsSeptember23,2003 L XX]m #]mXX4#JOHNM.JOHNSONv.DAVIDMILLS,WardenXX]m  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforMorganCounty  J @@No.8748E.Eugene_Eblen_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200202175CCAR3PC   October28,_2003_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XXXXTheDefendant,JohnM.Johnson,appealsfromthedenialofhispetitionforwritofhabeascorpus. x  Findingthatdenialofthepetitionwasappropriate,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.#XXXX##]mXX#XX]m d  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed  <   #]mX6#XX.]mDavidH.Welles,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJames_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.and d RobertW._Wedemeyer_,JJ.,joined. P JoeH.WalkerandWalterB.Johnson,II,Harriman,Tennessee,forthedefendant,JohnM.Johnson. ( PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;ElizabethB._Marney_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;  J.Scott_McCluen_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andFrankHarvey,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,  fortheappellee,DavidMills,Warden.  @@OO& OPINION #]mXX#XX]m `   #]mXX #XX]m  XXXXTheDefendantwasconvictedbyajuryofchildrape.Hisconvictionandfifteenyear $"t! sentencewereaffirmedbythisCourtondirectappeal.SeeStatev.Johnson,980S.W.2d414(Tenn. #`" _Crim_.App.1998).OnOctober31,2000,theDefendantfiledapetitionforwritofhabeascorpus, #L# inwhichheallegesthathisconvictionisvoidbecausetheindictmentfailedtoallegeallofthe $8 $ elementsofrapeofachild.Afterahearing,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdenyingtheDefendants %$!% petition.Theinstantappealfollowed. &"&   TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasexplainedtheverylimitedscopeofhabeascorpusrelief (#( inTennesseeasfollows: )$) 8   ` HabeascorpusreliefisavailableinTennesseeonlywhenitappearsuponthe \+&+ faceofthejudgmentortherecordoftheproceedingsuponwhichthejudgmentis H,', renderedthataconvictingcourtwaswithoutjurisdictionorauthoritytosentencea 4-(- _defendant,orthatadefendantssentenceofimprisonmentorotherrestrainthas  expired.   Archerv.State,851S.W.2d157,164(Tenn.1993)(quotationomitted).ThisCourthasstatedthat t  ifthecourtrenderingajudgmenthasjurisdictionoftheperson,thesubjectmatter,andhasthe ` authoritytomakethechallengedjudgment,thejudgmentisvoidable,notvoid;andthejudgment L  maynotbecollaterallyattackedinasuitforhabeascorpusrelief.Passarellav.State,891S.W.2d 8  619,627(Tenn.Crim.App.1994). $ t   #XXXX? #XXXXInthiscase,theDefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoconvicthim  L  becausetheindictmentfailedtoallegealloftheelementsofchildrape.Avalidindictmentisan  8   essentialjurisdictionalelementtoanyprosecution.Adefectiveindictmentmaydepriveacourt $  ofjurisdiction.SeeDykesv.Compton,978S.W.2d528,529(Tenn.1998).However,solongas   anindictmentperformsitsessentialconstitutionalandstatutorypurposes,adefectoromissioninthe   languageoftheindictmentwillnotrenderthejudgmentvoid.Seeid.     In1997,theTennesseeSupremeCourtestablishedthecriteriatodeterminewhetheran p indictmentproperlyperformsitsessentialconstitutionalandstatutoryduties.SeeStatev.Hill,954 \ S.W.2d725,72627(Tenn.1997).InHill,thecourtheldthatforoffensesthatdonotreferencean H applicableculpablementalstate,anindictmentwillmeetconstitutionalandstatutoryrequirements 4 solongas  p 8  (1)thelanguageoftheindictmentissufficienttomeettheconstitutional H requirementsofnoticetotheaccusedofthechargeagainstwhichtheaccusedmust 4 defend,adequatebasisforentryofaproperjudgment,andprotectionfromdouble   jeopardy;    8  (2)theformoftheindictmentmeetstherequirementsofTennesseeCodeAnnotated  section4013202;and   8  (3)thementalstatecanbelogicallyinferredfromtheconductalleged.X    Id. 0"    Ourcriminalcodedefinesrapeofachildas theunlawfulsexualpenetrationofavictimby $X" thedefendant...ifsuchvictimislessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913 $D # 522(a).Althoughnocopyoftheindictmentwasincludedintherecordonappeal,theDefendant %0!$ quotedthelanguagefromtheindictmentinhisbrief.Accordingtohisbrief,theindictmentcharged &"% theDefendantasfollows: '#& 8  THEGRANDJURORSofTiptonCounty,Tennessee,dulyempaneledandsworn, )$( upontheiroath,presentthatJOHNMALCOLMJOHNSONbetweenSeptember1, |*%) 1996andSeptember30,1996,inTiptonCounty,Tennessee,andbeforethefinding h+&* ofthisindictment,didunlawfully,feloniouslyandintentionallysexuallypenetrate   J.J.,dateofbirthAugust22,1985,achildlessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage,in  violation#XXXX#ԀofT.C.A.3913522,againstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateof  Tennessee.t   ThecruxoftheDefendantschallengetotheindictmentisthatitdidnotsufficientlyallegethathis L  sexualpenetrationofthevictimwas unlawful.Insupportofhisargument,hecitesStatev.Ealey, 8  959S.W.2d605(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).Specifically,hereferencesdictafromEaley,inwhich $ t thisCourtstatedthat thesexualassaultcrimesallrequiresomeformofunlawfulcontactbetween  ` theaccusedandthevictim.Id.at611.TheDefendantarguesthatsincethechildrapestatutedoes  L  notdefinetheterm unlawful,weshouldlooktothegeneralrapestatuteforanexplanationofwhat  8  constitutesanunlawfulsexualpenetration.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913503(a)states: $  8   ` Rapeisunlawfulsexualpenetrationofavictimbythedefendant...   accompaniedbyanyofthefollowingcircumstances:    8  (1)0`   Forceorcoercionisusedtoaccomplishtheact;p` `  8  (2)0`   Thesexualpenetrationisaccomplishedwithouttheconsentofthevictimand \ thedefendantknowsorhasreasontoknowatthetimeofthepenetrationthat H thevictimdidnotconsent;4` `  8  (3)0`   Thedefendantknowsorhasreasontoknowthatthevictimismentally  p defective,mentallyincapacitatedorphysicallyhelpless;or \` `  8  (4)0`   Thesexualpenetrationisaccomplishedbyfraud.H` `  Afterreferencingthegeneralrapestatute,theDefendantagaincitesEaleyforthepropositionthat    [a]llofthesexualassaultcrimescontemplatethelackofeffectiveconsentbythevictim.Ealey,   959S.W.2dat611.Toconcludehisargument,theDefendantstatesinhisbrief:  8  Itisthereforetruethat unlawfulinthesecrimes(includingChildRape),means  essentiallythelackofconsentofthevictimeitherthroughforceorcoercionorother l defectinthevictimsuchasageofthevictimormentaldefect.Thismakesthat X  circumstanceanelementoftheoffense.Thiselementwasnotchargedinthe D! indictmentandthereforetheindictmentdidnotchargetheoffenseofRapeofChild, 0"  andtheconvictionoftheDefendantisvoid. *#  1      #l!     WerejecttheDefendantsargument.First,theDefendantsrelianceonEaleyismisplaced. $D # InthesectionofEaleytowhichtheDefendantcites,thisCourtisexplainingwhystatutoryrapeis %0!$ notalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedrapeorrapeofachild.Therefore,thephrasesutilized &"% bytheDefendant,placedwithintheirpropercontext,aredescribingthedifferencesbetweenstatutory  rapeandtheothersexualassaultoffenses.Seeid.TheEaleycourtisnotexpressinganopinionas  tothesoundnessofthecharginginstrumentinthatcase.Infact,theindictmentinEaleyis  remarkablysimilartotheindictmentintheinstantcase,andthereisnoindicationthattheindictment t isdeficientfornotexplainingtheunlawfulnessofthedefendantsconduct. `   Second,weareunawareofanyauthorityfortheDefendantspropositionthattheterm 8   unlawfulinthechildrapestatutecreatesanadditionalelementthatmustbeallegedandproven $ t bytheState.Tothecontrary,oursupremecourthasstatedthat for[a]jurytoconvict[a]defendant  ` ofchildrape,ithadtofindthattheStateprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtthat[thevictim]wasless  L  thanthirteenyearsofageandthathe[orshe]wassexuallypenetratedbythedefendant.Statev.  8  Elkins,102S.W.3d578,582(Tenn.2003);seealsoStatev.RobbieJames,No.M200000304CCA $  RMCD,2000WL288334,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Mar.20,2000)( Childrapehastwo   essentialelements:(1)unlawfulsexualpenetration;and(2)avictimlessthanthirteen(13)yearsof   age.).     Finally,wenotethattheTennesseeSupremeCourthasanalyzedanindictmentthatwas p strikinglysimilartotheindictmentintheinstantcase,anditfoundtheindictmenttopass \ constitutionalandstatutorymuster. *#  2      ׀SeeHartv.State,21S.W.3d901,904(Tenn.2000). H   Forthesereasons,weconcludethattheindictmentwasnotvoidforfailingtoallegean  p essentialelementofchildrape.Accordingly,thetrialcourthadproperjurisdictiontoconvictthe  \ Defendantofthatoffense.Therefore,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialoftheDefendantspetition H forhabeascorpusrelief. 4    `     h        `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE