WPC s~ַwⶪ^[GC %y $u$0,'UuČ7աƚ`'o>P āGϞFc"XrQf_hWPs _Z<.X(t.]*u80.0k%v  I)Chp\Xxc<ȅz j^qY=wKCz6C0liSfGi]Rzx$n!/N0zY{GTU4ף5khftm,Xw38yb pZbShP_ՃЭb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 1u    X 72NP 0cRED 0DGGf ]hhhhhhhfOOOOOOb 0 B 0 D5i D- 0K ASi 0/ 0D AHP LaserJet 40500'+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*> 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.wpt3|xU3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    : R$      1    _ ` Thereversesideoftheindictmentreferstothechargedoffenseas aggravatedrape.Theconviction  courtandthestategenerallyreferredtothechargedoffenseas aggravatedrape.Priorto1992,theoffensecurrently t proscribedinCodesection3913522, rapeofachild,wasclassifiedasacategoryofaggravatedrape.SeeTenn.Code 8 Ann.3913502(a)(4)(1991)(amendedbyActofApr.23,1992,ch.878,1,31992Tenn.Pub.Acts807,808). L Thus,in1992,thecategorywasremovedandbecamethebasisofthenew rapeofachildsection3913522.(#$  0   R$      2    _ ` Seen.1,supra. \\R3' Letter\  R$      3    _ ` Eventhoughthelawin1981didnotspecificallyaddressthecircumstanceofthevictimpenetrating  thedefendant,asdoesthecurrentlaw,theformerdefinitionembracedconductthatisincludedwithinactivitythatis t embracedbythecurrentdefinition,andviaHart,thecurrentallegationsfitwithinthenarrowerdefinition. R$      4    _ ` Apparently,thetrialjudgetreateditassurplusage.Seen.2,supra. \\R3' Letter\- -(|G2$ !.8B]dd8         0   d(|3G|$ !.8B]dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G|$ !.8B]dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8B]dd8     _   B]8XXdd8(//@ttHB]INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#B]H.#Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsAugust22,2001 L XXB] #B]XX*#LAWRENCEA._STRICKLAND_v.JAMES_BOWLEN_,WardenXXB]  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Bledsoe_ԀCounty  J @@No.22001J.CurtisSmith,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200101236CCAR3CD   September7,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thepetitioner,LawrenceA._Strickland_,appealsthe_Bledsoe_ԀCountyCircuitCourtsdismissalofhis x  petitionforhabeascorpusrelief,whichchallengedhis1997guiltypleabased,_Roane_ԀCounty d convictionofaggravatedsexualbattery.Baseduponourdenovoreviewofmattersoflaw,we P concludethatthesentenceimposedbytheconvictioncourtwasvoid,althoughwerejectthe < petitionersclaimthattheindictmentisinvalid.Wereversethejudgmentofthelowercourtand (x granthabeascorpusreliefintheformofdeclaringthepetitioners_Roane_ԀCountysentencevoid. d Becausetheconvictionrestsuponaguiltypleathat,inturn,waspremisedupontheagreedsentence P beingvalid,wevacatethepetitionersconvictionandsentence.Theconvictioncourtshallafford < thepetitionertheopportunitytowithdrawhisguiltypleapursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCriminal ( Procedure11(e)(4).#B]XX#XXB]  4 Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedinPart,ReversedinPart     #B]X4 #XX.B]James_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_and t JohnEverettWilliams,JJ.,joined. ` LawrenceA._Strickland_,Appellant,ProSe. 8!  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;PatriciaC._Kussman_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; #`" JamesMichaelTaylor,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;JamesW.Pope,AssistantDistrictAttorney #L# General;andPeterMartin_Coughlan_,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,Stateof $8 $ Tennessee. %$!%  @@OO& OPINION #B]XX #XXB] (#( #B]XX#  XXB]   ` OnDecember12,1997,thepetitionerpleadedguiltyinthe_Roane_ԀCountyCriminal p*%* CourttoanoffenseofaggravatedsexualbatterythathadoccurredonoraboutJanuary22,1981.The \+&+ pleadisposedofa1996indictmentthatchargedthepetitionerwithtwo1981aggravatedrapes.The H,', indictmentuponwhichtheresultingaggravatedsexualbatteryconvictionisbasedallegesthat, 4-(-N _duringthespecified1981timeframe,thepetitionerdid unlawfullyandintentionallysexually  penetrate[thenamedvictim],apersonoflessthan(13)yearsofage,inviolationofT.C.A.section  3913522,contrarytotheformofthestatuteinsuchcases....SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913522  (1997)(enactedin1992andcaptioned rapeofachild,proscribingasaClassAfelony the t unlawfulsexualpenetrationofavictimbythedefendantorthedefendantbyavictim,ifsuchvictim ` islessthanthirteen(13)yearsofage). #  1       L     ` Insubmittingaguiltypleatoonecountofaggravatedsexualbattery,thepetitioner $ t apparentlyaccededtotheprosecutorsstatementthatthepartieshad  ` ` ` agreedtoproceedunderthecurrentsentencingconsiderations,in  8  exchangeforreductionofthechargefromaggravatedrapeto $  aggravatedsexualbattery.Wehaveagreedtorecommendasentence   oftwelveyears.Thiswillfallunderthecurrentsentencing   guidelines,whichrequirethesentencetobeservedat100percent,or   nolessthan85percent....   ` ` Theconvictioncourtacceptedthepleaandsentencedthepetitionertotwelveyearsinthe \ DepartmentofCorrection.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913504(enactedin1989andproscribingas H aClassBfelony unlawfulsexualcontactwithavictimbythedefendantorthedefendantbya 4 victimaccompaniedby...the[circumstanceofthevictimbeing]lessthanthirteen(13)yearsof  p age);Id.4035112(a)(1997)(establishingasentencingrangeofeighttotwelveyearsforRange  \ IClassBfelonies);Id.4035501(i)(1997)(providingthatapersonconvictedofaggravatedsexual H batteryshallserve100percentofhisorhersentencebeforebecomingeligibleforrelease,subject 4 totheapplicationofamaximumoffifteenpercentreduction).      ` Onappeal,thepetitionermaintainsthatheisentitledtohabeascorpusreliefbecause  (1)hissentencepursuanttothe1989sentencinglawisvoidand(2)hisconvictionisvoidbecause  theindictmentimproperlyinvokedastatutethatisinapplicableto1981conduct.     ` Thelegalissuesraisedarequestionsoflaw,andourreviewofquestionsoflawisde X  novo.Hartv.State,21S.W.3d901,903(Tenn.2000)( whethertograntthepetition[forhabeas D! corpusrelief]isaquestionoflawthatwereviewdenovo);Statev.Hill,954S.W.2d725,727 0"  (Tenn.1997)(questionoflawreviewedonappealdenovo).򀀀Baseduponourdenovoreview,we #l! reversethejudgmentofthelowercourtanddeclarevoidthepetitionerssentenceimposedbythe $X" RoaneCountyCriminalCourt. $D #    I.TheSentence  &"% Ї     ` In1981,sexualoffensesweregovernedby TheSexualOffensesLawof1979.See  Tenn.CodeAnn.393701(Supp.1980)(repealed1989).Thisactproscribedtheoffenseof  aggravatedrape,aClassXfelony,whichwasdefinedasthe unlawfulsexualpenetrationofanother  accompaniedby[thecircumstanceofthevictimbeing]lessthanthirteenyearsofage.SeeTenn. t CodeAnn.393703(Supp.1980)(repealed1989).Theprescribedpunishmentin1981for ` aggravatedrapewastwentyyearstolifeimprisonment.Seeid.TheCodein1981alsoproscribed L  aggravatedsexualbattery,aClassXfelony,whichwasdefinedastheunlawful sexualcontactwith 8  anotheraccompanied[bythecircumstanceofthevictimbeing]lessthanthirteenyearsofage.See $ t Id.393704(Supp.1980)(repealed1989).Theprescribedpunishmentin1981foraggravated  ` sexualbatterywasatermofimprisonmentnotlessthanfiveyearsnormorethan35years.Seeid.  L  Pursuanttothe ClassXFeloniesActof1979,sentencesforClassXfelonieswererequiredtobe  8  determinateinnature,werenotsubjecttoreductionfor good,honororincentiveorothersentence $  credit,andterminatedorexpired onlyafterserviceoftheentiresentencedayforday.Id.39   5403(Supp.1980)(repealed1989).      ` Inaddition,theTennesseeCriminalSentencingReformActof1982established   sentencingbythetrialjudgeinnoncapitalcases,asopposedtothepriorlawmandatingsentencing p bythejury.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035101through504(1982)(repealed1989).Eventhough \ the1982Acthasbeenrepealed,sentencingbythetrialjudgehasbeenretainedviatheCriminal H SentencingReformActof1989.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035203(1997). 4    ` Boththe1982andthe1989sentencinglawsrecitethatcrimescommittedbeforeJuly  \ 1,1982arepunishablebytheapplicablepreJuly1,1982sentencinglaw.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. H 4035112(a)(repealed1989);Tenn.CodeAnn.4035117(c)(1997);seealsoTenn.CodeAnn. 4 4035117,SentencingCommnComments(offensescommittedpriortoJuly1,1982 were   treatedundertheverydifferentindeterminatejurysentencingstructure).Furthermore,thiscourt   hasheldthatcrimescommittedpriortoJuly1,1982,areexclusivelypunishedviajurysentencing  undertheapplicablepriorlaw.Turnerv.State,919S.W.2d346,361(Tenn.Crim.App.1995);State  v.Harris,678S.W.2d473,476(Tenn.Crim.App.1984);Statev.Carter,669S.W.2d707,708  (Tenn.Crim.App.1984);seeWilliamAndrewDixonv.FloraJ.Holland,No.M199902494CCA l R3PC,concurringop.at1(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Nov.17,2000)(Hayes,J.,concurring), X  pet.forperm.app.granted(Tenn.Apr.30,2001).Thus,theconvictioncourtinthiscasewas D! requiredtoapplytheapplicable1981lawinsentencingthepetitioner. 0"     ` Next,weconsidertheeffectofthefailureofthatcourttoapplythepropersentencing $X" law.Weknowthatapetitioner,inordertoobtainhabeascorpusrelief,mustshowthathis $D # confinementistheresultofavoidjudgmentorthathissentencehasexpired.SeeArcherv.State, %0!$ 851S.W.2d157,164(Tenn.1993).Wealsoknowthattheinvalidityofthesentenceitself,aswell &"% asthebroaderinvalidityoftheconviction,resultsinavoidjudgmentandisasufficientbasisfor '#& habeascorpusrelief.SeeStephensonv.Carlton,28S.W.3d910,911(Tenn.2000).Tosupporta (#' claimforhabeascorpusrelief,however,theillegalityofasentencemustbeegregioustothepoint )$( ofvoidness.JerryL.Coxv.State,No.E200002044CCAR3PC,slipop.at35(Tenn.Crim. |*%) App.,Knoxville,Apr.17,2001).Thus,thepetitionershabeascorpuschallengetohissentenceis h+&* ineffectualunlesstheflawrendershissentencevoid.Id.Wehavedetermined,however,thatthe  flawhaspreciselythateffect.  e   ` InMcConnellv.State,apostconvictionreliefcase,oursupremecourtheldthata t sentencethatisbeyondthestatutorilyauthorizedsentencingprovisionsofthe1989sentencinglaw ` isvoid.McConnellv.State,12S.W.3d795,798800(Tenn.2000).InMcConnell,aproceeding L  underthe1989sentencingact,thehighcourtvacatedthesentencewhich,accordingtotheplea 8  agreement,wasstructuredunderthe1982sentencingact.Id.at796,800.Thecourtheldthatthe $ t sentencesimposedviaapleaagreementwere outsidethetrialcourtsjurisdiction.Id.at798.  `    ` ThiscourthaspreviouslyinterpretedMcConnelltomeanthatMcConnellssentence  8   wasflawedbecausethepartiescouchedthecomputationasanillegalfunctionofthe1982Act. $  WilliamBoydv.State,No.E199902179CCAR3PC,slipop.at5(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,   Nov.6,2000)(emphasisinoriginal).Thus,inlightofCarter,HarrisandTurner,thepetitioners   attemptinthepresentcasetojoinapost1989sentencetoa1981crimerunsafoulofMcConnell.   McConnellrequiresaconclusionthattheRoaneCountycourthadnojurisdictiontoimposea   sentencepursuanttothe1989sentencinglaw.Consequently,thesentenceisvoidandistheproper p subjectofhabeascorpusrelief. \   II.TheIndictment  4      ` Wemustnowconsiderwhethertheindictmentisavalidbasisforaprosecutionand  \ convictioninthiscase.Theindictmenteffectivelychargedthepetitionerwiththe1981rapeofa H namedfemalevictimwhowasthenlessthanthirteenyearsofage,anditallegedtheconductwasin 4 violationofCodesection3913522,thecurrent rapeofachildstatute,despitethatthisparticular   Codesectionwasnotenacteduntil1992. #  2      ׀   e   ` Theclaimofavoidindictmentisanattackuponthetrialcourtsjurisdictionandis  justiciableinanactionforhabeascorpusrelief.Hart,21S.W.2dat903;Dykesv.Compton,978  S.W.2d528,529(Tenn.1998).Again,ourreviewisdenovo.SeeHart,21S.W.2dat903. l    ` InviewoftheprovisionsoftheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnited D! StatesConstitutionandArticleI,section9oftheTennesseeConstitutionguaranteeingtherightof 0"  acriminaldefendanttobeinformedofthenatureandcauseofthecriminalcharge,theindictment #l! inquestionmayatfirstblushappeartobeinvalid.Itallegesa1981offenseasabreachofa1992 $X" statute.Certainly,thestatewouldhavebeenmoreprudenttohavechargedspecificallyabreachof $D # theapplicable1981proscriptivestatute;however,wehaveconcludedthattheindictmentemployed %0!$ inthiscaseservesasavalidbasisforaprosecution. &"%   '#&    ` Tobesure,anindictmentmust providesufficientinformation(1)toenablethe  accusedtoknowtheaccusationtowhichanswerisrequired,(2)tofurnishthecourtadequatebasis  fortheentryofaproperjudgment,and(3)toprotecttheaccusedfromdoublejeopardy.Statev.   eHill,954S.W.2d725,727(Tenn.1997).InHill,however,oursupremecourtconcludedthat, t althoughthescienterrequirementforaggravatedrapewasnotstatedintheindictment,theindictment ` wasvalid,baseduponit(1)satisfyingthethreeaforementionedconstitutionalrequirements,(2) L  complyingwiththenoticerequirementsofCodesection4013202,and(3)providingabasisfor 8  logicallyinferringthementalelementofthecrimecharged.Id.at72627.TheHillcourtstressed $ t thatindictmentsshouldbescrutinizedfromthevantagepointof commonsenseandrightreason  ` ratherthanfromthenarrowstandpointof...technicalityorhairsplittingfaultfinding.Id.at728  L  (quotingUnitedStatesv.Purvis,580F.2d853,857(5thCir.1978)).  8     ` SinceHill,thecourthasoftenrepeateditsintentiontorelax commonlawpleading   requirementsanditsreluctancetoelevateformoversubstancewhenevaluatingthesufficiencyof   indictments.See,e.g.,Statev.Hammonds,30S.W.3d294,300(Tenn.2000).InHammonds,the   courtsaid, Indeed,Hillanditsprogenyleavelittledoubtthatindictmentswhichachievethe   overridingpurposeofnoticetotheaccusedwillbeconsideredsufficienttosatisfybothconstitutional p andstatutoryrequirements.Id.;seeStatev.Sledge,15S.W.3d93,94(Tenn.2000);Crittendenv. \ State,978S.W.2d929,931(Tenn.1998);Ruffv.State,978S.W.2d95,100(Tenn.1998). H    ` Inthisvein,butmorepertinenttothepresentcase,oursupremecourthasupheldan  p indictmentthatchargedincestinthelanguageofarepealedproscriptivestatute,formerCodesection  \ 394306(a)(1).SeeHartv.State,21S.W.3d901,904905(Tenn.2000).Usingthelanguageofthat H erstwhilestatute,theindictmentallegedthedefendants carnalknowledgeofthevictim.The 4 statuteapplicableatthetimeofthecharge,Codesection3915302(a),required sexualpenetration   oftheincestvictim.Thecourtcomparedthephrases carnalknowledgeand sexualpenetration,   andbaseduponadeterminationthattheformerisincludedwithinthelatter,itheldthatHartwas  afforded plain,understandablenoticethathewaschargedwiththecrimeofincestinvolvinghis  stepchild,inviolationofTennesseelaw,duringaspecifiedperiodoftime.Hart,21S.W.3dat905.     ` Similarly,inthepresentcase,theindictmentaffordedthepetitioner plain, X  understandablenoticethathewasbeingchargedwithaviolationofTennesseelawproscribingrape, D! aggravatedbythenamedvictimbeinglessthatthirteenyearsofage,andthattheoffenseoccurred 0"  duringaspecifictimeframein1981.Tobesure,theindictmentreferstoCodeSection3913522; #l! however,thatsection,whichproscribesthesexualpenetrationinvolvingachildlessthanthirteen $X" yearsofage,emanatedin1992fromthe1989aggravatedrapestatute,Codesection3913502.Prior $D # tothe1992amendmentthatcreatedthenewsection3913522asanindependentoffensecalled rape %0!$ ofachild,thestatusofarapevictimbeinglessthanthirteenyearsofagewasacategoryof &"% aggravatedrape.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913502(a)(4)(1991)(amended1992).Assuch,the '#& aggravatedrapestatutecontainedessentiallythesameelementsasdidthecrimeofaggravatedrape (#'  in1981.CompareTenn.CodeAnn.3913502(a)(1991)(amended1992)withTenn.CodeAnn. )$( 393703(1980)(aggravatedrapeiscommittedwhenthedefendantsexuallypenetratesavictimof  lessthanthirteenyearsofage)(repealed1989).  #  3            ` Thus,theindictmentsetsforththeelementsofthecrimeofaggravatedrapeasit t appliedtotheallegedconductofthepetitionerin1981.ThereferencetothenonapplicableCode ` section3913522maybetreatedassurplusage.SeeMcCrackenv.State,489S.W.2d48,51(Tenn. L  1972)(itisnotnecessarythatindictmentstatethatthechargedconductis contrarytoastatute,and 8  referencetowrongproscriptivestatutewasproperlytreatedbytrialcourtassurplusage).! #  4      ׀Inshort, $ t weholdthatthepresentindictmentmeetsallconstitutionalandstatutorynoticerequirementsandis  ` avalidbasisforaprosecutionandresultingconviction.  L     III.Conclusion  @  @`  $       ` Inconclusion,weholdthat,althoughtheindictmentisvalid,thesentence,whichis   theproductofapleabargainingagreement,isvoid.      ` Theremedythatwemustapplyistovacatenotonlythesentencebuttheconviction p aswell.Theconvictionresultedfromapleaagreementthatfeaturedtheagreed,butvoidsentence. \ Thepetitionershouldresumehisposturebeforetheconvictioncourt,inwhichispendingan H indictmentcharginghimwithtwocountsofaggravatedrapeallegedlycommittedin1981andin 4 whichhehassubmittedaguiltyplea;however,becausetheprofferedsentenceisnottenable,the  p agreementmustbedeemedrejected.Thepetitionermustbeaffordedanopportunitytowithdrawthe  \ pleainaccordancewithTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure11(e)(4).Ifhedoessoandis H unsuccessfulinarrangingasubstitutepleaagreement,heshallstandtrialontheindictmentas 4 interpretedinthisopinion.      ` Itdoesnotfalltothiscourttofathomwhythepetitioner,actingprose,hasfoughtso  valiantlyinthehabeascorpuscourtandonappealtoplacehimselfbackinjeopardyofbeing  convictedontwochargesofaggravatedrape,eachofwhichcarriesapunishmentrangeoftwenty  yearstolife,withoutsentencecreditorparole.Nevertheless,thepetitionerhasestablishedhisright l todoso,andaccordingly,wegranthimhisrequestedappellatereliefbyreversingtheactionofthe X  habeascorpuscourt. D!    `     h     ___________________________________ $X"    `     h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE