WPCg=  HNim)HkvRL/_!s>ZR`R02c6Jx)'q QZ:TiN6 Q#nDjRYqX\TNXX>N       XYXXXXXY      >NhX,>N  2   !      ݀See,e.g.,Statev.Hall,No.02C019802CR00040,1998WL545339,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.at p Jackson,August28,1998)(followingthepetitionersguiltyplea,thejudgmentbecamefinaluponthe 8  H waiverofhisrighttoappeal);Statev.Hooper,No.03C019701CR00035,1998WL95392,at*1 p (Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,March6,1998)(ajudgmentbecomesfinal30daysafteritisenteredintotheminutesofthecourtclerk). A "XϭXXyXXXϭ   ,XXXXy, X,X   Ad FILED,XX ,  March31,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdA   !!XXXYXXX   XXXXY4X  >NXX>N       XYXXXXXY      >NhX,>N  3   !      ݀Normally,thepetitionersfailuretoprovideanadequaterecordonappealwouldprecludeour p considerationofthisissue.However,wenotethat,inhisNoticeofAppeal,thepetitionerrequestedthat allproceedings,records,andanyhearingtranscriptsbecertifiedtotheCriminalCourtofAppealsbythisCourt. O !!XXXYXXX   XXXXY4X  >NXX>N       XYXXXXXY      >NhX,>N  4   !      ݀Wenotethat,althoughthe1989Actloweredandnarrowedthebroadrangesofpunishment p availableforrobberyandarmedrobbery,thepetitionerssentencesarestillwithinthoseranges.Ofcourse,weareunabletodeterminefromthelimitedrecordbeforeusthespecificrangethatwouldhavebeenapplicabletothispetitionerunderthe1989Act.Inanyevent,aswesubsequentlyconclude,thetrialcourtappliedthecorrectlawinsentencingthepetitioner.  !!XXXYXXX   XXXXY4X  >NXX>N       XYXXXXXY      >NhX,>N  5   !      ݀AnallegationofaBradyviolationmay,insomecases,tolltheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsfor p filingapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Armstrongv.State,No.01C019311CR00403,1994WL 8  695424,at**34(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,December8,1994).However,inthiscasethepetitionerallegedthattheprosecutorwithheldthefollowinginformation:8 Thatthevictimsinthiscaseatbar,beingtwowomen,oneanXFelon,wereatapublicarea,plentyofstreetlights,andviewbyotherpeople.  (# (# Theappellantnowhereallegesthathehimselfwasnotawareofthesefactsatthetimeofhisguiltypleaorthatthesefactsonlycametolightfollowingtheexpirationoftheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.3|x\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP%2A`ArialTTomanTTXXX2PQXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP%2A`ArialTTomanTTJ2PQP<6X9`("Courier NewTTTTXXx6X@DQX@(J$XXXYXXX   dstuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a),  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular vawPxPyzP{|}D~ӀuM% p ####'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular A "XϭX/XyXXXϭ   0XXX/Xy0 X0X   Ad FILED0XX 0  March30,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdA %2A`ArialTT,cAZ"Arial Regular(<1$26.  0  3  0  (gfi$0  2(6.  0  .  0  3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2A   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xr$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2A(  0  )3  0 (# (#(U$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2A(  a  )3  0h(#(#(@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2A(   )3  0h(#h(#(t$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2A  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2A  a  )3  0p(#(# !!XϭXXyXXXϭ   TR[A'3'A' Legal3'T` 4X~~&            ~r+<,(j 8` `@E f ` 8ttxPX`  r~r-+<,(j 8` `@E f ` 8ttxPX`  r   INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  P  !     '`   &           ATNASHVILLE  0  7!     '0 G~~  &           DECEMBER1998SESSION    ^!     'n ~ ~    MATHISMARTIN , <     * D No.01C019801CR00013 p   APPELLANT,    * D DavidsonCounty P    VS.   <     * D HonorableSethNorman,Judge 0    STATEOFTENNESSEE ,    * D (PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus) T$  p    APPELLEE. <     * D  P       ForAppellant: <      D ForAppellee:    MathisMartin <      D JohnKnoxWalkup  MTCXAnnex <      D   AttorneyGeneralandReporter  7466CentennialBoulevard   D 425FifthAvenueNorth  p Nashville,TN372091052   D   Nashville,TN372430493 !`      <      D KimR.Helper   <      D AssistantAttorneyGeneral   <      D 425FifthAvenueNorth   <      D Nashville,TN372430493          OPINIONFILED:____________________    AFFIRMED    NORMAMCGEEOGLE,JUDGE  1P(+ vp` v*Q  &           OPINION S  P  !     'P ~ ~v v             OnNovember19,1997,thepetitioner,MathisMartin,filedprosea PetitiontoSetAsideGuiltyPlea,And/OrAlternativeWritofHabeasCorpusintheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourt.OnDecember3,1997,thetrialcourtsummarilydismissedthepetition,findingnocognizablegroundsforrelief.Onappeal,thepetitionerchallengesthetrialcourtsdismissalofhispetitionwithouttheappointmentofcounseloranevidentiaryhearing.Followingathoroughreviewofthepetitionandtherecord,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. !          Inhispetition,thepetitionerallegedthathepledguiltyintheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourttotwocountsofarmedrobberyandonecountofrobberyonJuly20,1989. XyXXXyXϭXXXy         1     %XXXXϭԀAccordingtothepetitioner,apleaagreementprovidedfora  sentenceoffifteenyearsincarcerationintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionforeachcountofarmedrobberyandeightyearsincarcerationfortherobberyconviction.Thesentencesweretobeservedconcurrentlywithoneanotherandconsecutivelytoasentencebeingservedpursuanttoaparoleviolation.Instead,thetrialcourtorderedthatthepetitionerserveallhissentencesconsecutively.Noappealwastaken.#XϭXX%X# )`!$  &XXXXϭ Inhispetitionrequestinghabeascorpusrelief,thepetitionerallegedforthefirsttimethefollowinggroundsforrelief:C  $#$C8 0 (# (#  (1) < Thetrialcourtfailedtoimplementthesentencing !  @! vp*Qp`   pv @! w @!  1(, warrangementset#XϭXX&X#'XXXXϭforthinthepleaagreement,imposing !  @!  @! ~u*Qpp  u~wu*Qpp  uwx @!  1v)- xconsecutiveinsteadofconcurrentsentencing;2\*. (# (# *Q p     (2) < #XXX'XY#%XYXXXBecausethepetitionerscrimesoccurredwithinatwentyfour `     < hourperiodoftime,thetrialcourtsimpositionofconsecutive   < sentencingwaserroneous,andtheresultingsentence T$ r @   r  < constitutedcruelandunusualpunishment;#XXX%XYW#'XYXXX8  0!(#(#  0 !(#!(#  8 (3)0< (# (#ThetrialcourtdidnotapplytheTennesseeCriminal   SentencingReformActof1989insentencingthepetitioner; <(#<(# 8  (4) < 0 (# (# < Thepetitionerscounselprovidedineffectiveassistance(#(# #XXX'XY)#%XYXXX   < includingfailingtoadvisethepetitionerofhisrighttoappealhis p     < sentence,failingtoadequatelyinvestigatehiscasebefore T$  `     < advisinghimtopleadguilty,failingtoadvisethepetitionerofhis   < rightagainstselfincrimination,assistingthepoliceand T$  @     < prosecutorinobtaininginformationfromthepetitioner,and T$  0     < failingtoensurethatthepetitionerwascompetenttoplead T$       < guilty#XXX%XY"#'XYXXX;    (5)8 < 0<(#<(# < Thepetitionerwasnotcompetenttopleadguilty;p(#(# #XXX'XY| #%XYXXX   < moreover,hisguiltypleawasneitherknowingnorvoluntary#XXX%XYm!#'XYXXX; `   (6)8 < 0<(#<(# < Therewasnofactualbasistohisplea;P(#(#   (7)8 < 0<(#<(# < TheStatewithheldexculpatoryinformation;@(#(#   (8) < 0  < Thepetitionersconvictionssubjectedhimtodoublejeopardy;0%%   (9)8 < 0<(#<(# < Thewordingofhisindictmentrendereditvoid,andthe (#(#    < Indictmentwasunsupportedbytheevidence;  (10)8 < 0<(#<(# < Theprosecutorselectivelyprosecutedthepetitionerand(#(# #XXX'XY"#%XYXXX   < otherwiseengagedinprosecutorialmisconduct;#XXX%XY%#'XYXXX    (11)8 < 0<(#<(# < Thetrialcourtdidnotpossessvenue.p(#(# X 44        Thepetitioneraskedthathebepermittedtowithdrawhisguiltyplea,or,alternatively,thathebegranteda lateAppeal. '!      X   Initially,wehavepreviouslyobservedthat,underTennesseelaw,atrialcourtmaysetasidetheacceptanceofaguiltypleainthreedifferentcircumstances.Statev.Lyons,No.01C019508CR00263,1997WL469501,at*5  +"% (Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,August15,1997).Tenn.R.Crim.P.32(f)governstwocircumstancesinwhichadefendantmaywithdrawaguiltypleabeforeajudgmenthasbecomefinal.Id.at**56.Inthiscase,thepetitionersjudgmentof 0P(+ convictionbecamefinallongbeforethefilingoftheinstantpetition. 'XYXX'XYXXX'XY      'XYXhX   2     Aftera 20*- judgmentbecomesfinal,adefendantmaythenseektohavehisguiltypleasetasideinpostconvictionproceedings.Lyons,No.01C019508CR00263,1997WL P  469501,at**56.ThePostConvictionProcedureActalsoprovidesthat,ifatrialcourtfindsthatapetitionerwasdeniedtherighttoanappealfromtheoriginalconvictioninviolationofthestateandfederalconstitutions,thetrialcourtmaygranta delayedappeal.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030213(1997). `      Thecourtinthiscasecouldhavetreatedthispetitionasapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030205(c)(1997).However,therecordinthiscaseclearlyshowsthattheapplicablethreeyearstatuteoflimitationexpiredin1992.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(1989).Moreover,thePostConvictionProcedureActof1995didnotrevivethepetitionersclaims.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030201to222(1997).See,e.g.,Coxv.State,No.02C019508CR00221,1997  WL284713,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,May30,1997)( [p]etitionsbarredbythestatuteoflimitationscontainedinthe1986Actmaynotberevivedbyfilingundertheamendedact).    Habeascorpusproceedingsprovideafourthcontextinwhichapetitionermaychallengeajudgmentofconvictionorsentencestemmingfromaguiltyplea.See,e.g.Dykesv.Compton,978S.W.2d528(Tenn.1998).However, ,#& theproceduralprovisionspertainingtohabeascorpusreliefaremandatoryandmustbescrupulouslyfollowed.Villanuevav.Carlton,No.03C019611CR00425,1997 /`'* WL607499,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,October3,1997),perm.toappeal 1@), denied,concurringinresultsonly,(Tenn.1999).Wenotethatthepetitionerdidnot p attachthejudgmentofconvictioninhiscasetohispetitionforhabeascorpusrelief,asrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.2921107(b)(2)(1997).Atrialcourtmaydismissapetitionforfailuretocomplywiththisrequirement.Stateexrel.Woodv.  Johnson,393S.W.2d135,136(Tenn.1965).Nevertheless,becausethejudgment  isnotcriticaltothedispositionofthispetitionandintheinterestofjudicialeconomy,wewilladdressthemeritsofthepetitionersappeal.    TheHabeasCorpusActrequiresacourttoreviewthepetitionanddismissitunlessitallegesacognizablegroundforrelief.Tenn.CodeAnn.2921101to!109(1997).Inotherwords,apetitionforawritofhabeascorpusmaybesummarilydismissedbythetrialcourtwithoutappointmentofcounsel,withoutanevidentiaryhearing,andwithouttheopportunitytoamendthepetition,ifthefaceofthepetitiondoesnotpresentacognizableclaim.Mitchellv.Carlton,No.03C01  ` 9704CR00125,1998WL8505,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,January12,1998).SeealsoAttawayv.State,No.03C019703CR00100,1998WL125563,at $  *3(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,March23,1998).Moreover,ifthepetitionisinartfullydrawn,thetrialcourtisnotrequiredtoappointcounsel.Thereisnorighttocounselinhabeascorpusproceedings.SeeRansomv.Myers,No.01C019708 0*!$ CC00233,1998WL748673,at*4(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,October23,1998);Statev.Harris,No.01C019309CR00304,1994WL630504,at*1(Tenn. -%( Crim.App.atNashville,November10,1994).0    % %   Thus,wemustconsiderwhetherornotthepetitionerhasstatedclaimscognizableinhabeascorpusproceedings.Theremedyofthewritofhabeascorpus p5-0 islimitedtorelieffromvoidandnotmerelyvoidablejudgments.Archerv.State,851 p S.W.2d157,163(Tenn.1993);Passarellav.State,891S.W.2d619,626(Tenn. P  Crim.App.1994);Donaldv.State,No.01C019710CR00481,1998WL468646,at 0  *1(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,August12,1998),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.  1999).Inotherwords,itmustappearuponthefaceofthejudgmentortherecordoftheproceedingsuponwhichthejudgmentisrenderedthatacourtwaswithoutjurisdictionorauthoritytoconvictorsentenceadefendant,orthatadefendant=ssentenceofimprisonmenthasexpired.Archer,851S.W.2dat164;Ritchiev.State,   No.03C019601CC00029,1998WL855517,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,December10,1998).Additionally,ifaclaimwouldnecessarilyinvolveinvestigationbeyondthefaceofthejudgmentortherecordoftheproceedings,theclaimwillnotbecognizableinhabeascorpusproceedings.See,e.g.,Martinv.State,No.02C01  9804CC00101,1998WL467098,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,August12,1998).    Weconcludethatthepetitionerfailedtoallegefactsadequatelydemonstratingthevoidcharacteroftheproceedingswhichledtohisconfinement.McDowellv.Jones,No.03C019707CR00278,1998WL389065,at*1(Tenn. P(" Crim.App.atKnoxville,July14,1998).ThepetitionerfirstallegesthatthetrialcourtfailedtoimplementthepleaagreementbetweenthepetitionerandtheState.ItisunclearfromtherecordandthepetitionwhetherthepleaagreementatissuewasbindingornonbindingpursuanttoTenn.R.Crim.P.11(e).Thus,itisunclearwhetherthepetitionerisarguingthathiscounseldidnotapprisehimofthenatureof hispleaagreementorthatthetrialcourtdidnotaffordthepetitioneranopportunity 3 +. towithdrawhispleapursuanttoRule11(e)(4). 'XYXX'XYXXX'XY      'XYXhX   3      p      Inanyevent,whetherwecharacterizethepetitionersargumentintermsofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,achallengetothevoluntaryandknowingnatureofhisguiltyplea,orachallengetothetrialcourtscompliancewithRule11,thepetitionersclaimrendersthejudgmentvoidableratherthanvoid.Wehavepreviouslyobservedthatineffectiveassistanceofcounselisnotacognizablebasisforhabeascorpusrelief.McCaslinv.State,No.01C019611CC00480,1998WL   44919,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1998); p Statev.Harris,No.01C019309CR00304,1994WL630504,at*1(Tenn.Code P Ann.AtNashville,November10,1994).SeealsoWoodenv.State,No.03C01 0 9303CR0069,1993WL313643,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,August13,1993)(thepetitionerscomplaintthattheguiltypleajudgmentwasconstitutionallydeficientbecauseofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,eveniftrue,wouldmakethejudgmentmerelyvoidableandnotvoid).Similarly,challengestothevoluntaryorknowingnatureofaguiltypleacanbemadeonlybyapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Archerv.State,851S.W.2d157,164(Tenn.1993).SeealsoNealv.State, p&  810S.W.2d131,134(Tenn.1991)(failureofatrialcourttogivethefulllitanyofBoykinrightsrenderedthejudgmentvoidableratherthanvoid).Additionally,tothe 0*!$ extentthatatrialcourtscompliancewithRule11isintendedtoensurethevoluntaryandknowingnatureofaguiltyplea,atrialcourtsfailuretocomplywithRule11inacceptingaguiltypleaisproperlyaddressedinpostconvictionproceedings.See /`'* Statev.Lord,894S.W.2d312,316(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)( thefocusofthe p inquiryataguiltypleahearingisonwhetherornotthepleaisbeingvoluntarilyandintelligentlymadeandtheproceduralrequirementsofMackeyandRule118insure 0  thattherecordwillshowthatsuchapleaoccurs).    Second,thepetitionerassertsthatthetrialcourtcouldnotimposeconsecutivesentencing,becausehiscrimesoccurredwithinatwentyfourhourperiodoftime.Generally,apetitionermaychallengeanillegalsentenceinhabeascorpusproceedings.Cupplesv.State,No.02C019511CC00333,1996WL p 601730,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,October22,1996).SeealsoStatev. P Burkhart,566S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.1978).However,nothinginthelawatthe 0 timeofthepetitionersoffensesprecludedconsecutivesentencingforoffensesoccurringwithinatwentyfourhourperiod.Atthetimeoftheappellantsoffensesandatthetimeofhisguiltypleaandsentencing,consecutivesentencingwasgovernedinpartbyoursupremecourtsdecisioninGrayv.State,538S.W.2d391, "@ 393(Tenn.1976).Inthatcase,thecourtrejectedthepetitionersargumentthat         8 indeterminingwhetherornottosentenceadefendanttoconsecutivesentences,thetrialjudge[wa]srequiredtotakeintoconsiderationthefactthatalloftheoffensesaroseoutofonesinglecriminalepisodeorwereinspiredbythesamegeneralintentandminutelylimitedinbothtimeandspace.  (# (#  Redt      8   (# (# Indeed,Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(e)(1988)explicitlyeliminatedthe singlecriminalepisodeconceptforpurposesofimposingconsecutiveorconcurrentsentencesuponpersistentoffendersasprovidedbythesupremecourt.Therefore,wemayalsoconcludethatthemerefactthatthepetitionersoffensesoccurredwithinatwentyfourhourperioddidnotrenderhisconsecutivesentencescruelandunusualpunishment.SeeWootenv.State,477S.W.2d767,768(Tenn.Crim.App. p5-0 1971)(impositionofcumulativesentencepursuanttoastatuteapprovedbythesupremecourtofthisstatedidnotconstitutecruelandunusualpunishment).See P  generallyHoltv.McWherter,No.01C019201CR00095,1993WL207649,at*2 0  (Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,June11,1993)(sentenceoflifeimprisonmentforarmedrobberydidnotconstitutecruelandunusualpunishment).    Third,thepetitionerassertsthatthe1989SentencingReformActwasineffectatthetimeofhisguiltypleaandsentencinginJuly,1989.Therefore,hecontendsthathissentenceisvoid,becausethetrialcourtfailedtoapplythe1989Actinhiscase.Moreover,thepetitionerstatesthat,becausehewasnotsentencedunderthe1989Act,(1)hisconfinementconstitutesexpostfactopunishment;(2)hewasdeniedequalprotectionofthelaw;(3)hewasdenieddueprocessoflaw;and(4)hissentenceconstitutescruelandunusualpunishment.Initially,implicitinthepetitionistheassumptionthatthepetitionerwouldhavereceivedalessersentenceunderthe1989Act. 'XYXX'XYXXX'XY      'XYXhX   4     Thus,thefactualallegationsofthiscasedonotpermit "@ invocationofanexpostfactochallenge.See,e.g.,Yatesv.Sundquist,No.01C01 $  9707CC00299,1998WL299290,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville),perm.to p&  appealdenied,(Tenn.1998).Furthermore,thepetitionersassertionthatthe1989 P(" Actwasineffectatthetimeofhisguiltypleaandsentencingiserroneous.Instead,theeffectivedateoftheActwasNovember1,1989,severalmonthsaftertheimpositionofthepetitionerssentence.InStateexrel.Crumv.McWherter,No. -%( 02C019108CC00181,1992WL99029,at**34(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson, /`'* May13,1992),ourcourtheldthatthe1989Act,byitsownterms,doesnotapplytosentencesimposedpriortotheeffectivedateoftheAct,andthatfailuretoapplytheActtothosepenaltiesdoesnotviolateequalprotectionprinciples.SeealsoState 0  exrel.Jonesv.McWherter,No.01C019204CR00124,1992WL335918,at*7  (Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,November18,1992);Simpsonv.State,No.01C01  9203CR00098,1992WL335937,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,November18,1998).Additionally,thiscourthasheldthatthefailuretoapplythe1989Acttopreviouslyimposedsentencesdoesnotviolateprinciplesofdueprocess.Barrettv.   State,No.02C019508CC00233,1997WL81658,at**34(Tenn.Crim.App.at p Jackson),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1997).Finally,assumingthatthe P petitionerwouldhavereceivedareducedpenaltyunderthenewAct,thisfactalonedoesnotrenderasentenceunderthepriorlawdisproportionatetothecrime.Id.at  *3.SeealsoStateexrel.Jones,No.01C019204CR00124,1992WL335918,at  *3.    Thepetitionersremainingclaimsaresimilarlyinappropriateforconsiderationinhabeascorpusproceedings.Adoublejeopardyclaimisnotcognizableinahabeascorpusproceeding.Harveyv.State,No.03C019510CC P(" 00307,1996WL368208,at1(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,June28,1996).Also,becauseaguiltypleawaivesanyargumentconcerningvenue,venueinthiscasewillnotconstituteacognizableclaiminapetitionforhabeascorpusrelief.Ellisv. -%( Carlton,No.03C019711CR00493,1998WL597140,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.at /`'* Knoxville,September10,1998),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1998).We 1@),  additionallyconcludethatallegationsconcerningapossibleviolationoftheruleset 3 +. forthinBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83,83S.Ct.1194(1963), 'XYXX'XYXXX'XY      'XYXhX   5     andallegationsof p  prosecutorialmisconductwouldrequireinvestigationoffactsotherthanthosecontainedonthefaceofthejudgmentortherecordoftheproceedingsand,accordingly,arenotcognizableinthiscase.Martin,No.02C019804CC00101,  1998WL467098,at*1.  Finally,thepetitionerallegesthattheindictmentwasdefectiveinhiscase.However,notalldefectsinanindictmentarecognizablegroundsforhabeascorpusrelief.See,e.g.Thompsonv.Carlton,No.03C019611CR00395,1998WL p 19932,at**12(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,January22,1998),perm.toappeal P denied,(Tenn.1998).ThepetitionercontendsthattheStatesuseoftheword 0  unlawfulintheindictmentrendereditvoid,becauseuseoftheworddid notcomplytostatute.Weacknowledgethattheapplicablestatuteemploystheterm felonious.Tenn.CodeAnn.392501(1988).However,thepetitionerdoesnotclaimthattheterm feloniouswasomittedfromtheindictment,andweconcludethattheinsertionoftheword unlawful,withoutmore,wasinsufficienttodivestthetrialcourtofjurisdictionoverthepetitionerscase.    Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. ,#&    <      D ________________________y񀀀 p Ѐyy p y !  T$  p z  z <      D NORMAMCGEEOGLE,JudgeCONCUR:_______________________{񀀀{  JOHNH.PEAY,Judgè________________________}}|񀀀|}} @  JOSEPHM.TIPTON,Judge#XXX'XYE&#