WPCTC E5$HZ*(*Z<#I?S"ԽRxshY|;8!Pxg8dgǙXIGԼ zz0n(")S=v_e%tzH 5債dcC+:rZ5 &Ҧ2#"Rfc+0"G+TE.AB]~9bX216WڪQO6KFَ^b6]~8ina`I G9bAj_/Z,xk14NL,q8@ ɳq|iJr!F?%p4:N^NQ{D)ShV{2BT9׵3jvcfO|Bmu,|Ll>y-w4:xK:UBF+l!E~puAgikǁ'[Zf# %U ^ [ 0g UN w= 4A zU    m 0U    p 06N 0! 0E 0 0 0 0 0Z 0C. 0q 0H 0 0 0 0 0N 0 0@ 0 0 0 0 0Q 0! 0! 0"b]# 00e# 0<# 0# 0>$ 0v$ 0`C% 0`% 0`& 0`c& 0`& 08#' 0[' 02-( 0_( 0:[) 0Y) 0_) 0 M* 0jW+ 0, B*E. D/o. 0. D/"0 0Q0 061 0U1 0:]2 0^2 0<2 1e13U63U>3U* 4 1u44 04 725 AM5 0N6 Ba6~6 06 D387 D-k7 0K7y7 AS\@@ 0uA 0DB A]B 0DCCCLCHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0Ơ-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularPH,}.bkQ 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|xU*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7D(X7  ?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dC)1dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7  ?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7C)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(|G2 $ !.8Fdd8         0  -Qi)X[ZA<< c(O$ d  (|3G$ !.8Fdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   o R $      1  -  _ԀAlthoughthePetitionerproceededproseatthetriallevelwithregardtohishabeascorpuspetition,he  requestsinhisbriefthatcounselbeappointedtorepresenthim.Theappointmentofcounselinahabeascorpus  proceedingisdiscretionary:TennesseeCodeAnnotated4014204providesthat [i]nallproceedingsforthewritof  habeascorpus...,thecourthavingjurisdictionofsuchmattersshalldeterminethequestionofindigencyandappoint GL counsel,ifnecessary,inthemannersetoutinthispart.Furthermore,thereisnoconstitutionalrighttocounselinhabeas   corpusproceedings.TimDentonv.State,No.03C01-9712-CR-00536,1999Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS493,at*3(Tenn.  Crim.App.,Knoxville,May17,1999)(citingWeatherlyv.State,704S.W.2d730,732(Tenn.Crim.App.1985)).This   Courthasheldthat whenapetitionhasbeencompetentlydraftedandconclusivelyshowsthatthepetitionerisentitled W \ tonorelief,thetrialcourtmayorderthepetitiondismissedwithouttheappointmentofcounselandwithoutan   evidentiaryhearing.Id.Inthiscase,wefindnoindicationintherecordthatthePetitionermadeaproperrequestfor    counsel,bymotionorotherwise,atanyotherpointpriortothisappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.36(a)( Nothinginthis    ruleshallbeconstruedasrequiringreliefbegrantedtoapartyresponsibleforanerrororwhofailedtotakewhatever g l  actionwasreasonablyavailabletopreventornullifytheharmfuleffectofanerror.)Wefurthernotethatthepetition +0  inthiscasewascompetentlydraftedandthatitshowsthatthePetitionerisnotentitledtorelief.Forthesereasons,we   declinetoappointcounsel.^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Fdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(#$  0    !.8Fdd8     _   F8XXdd8Wb@ttYFINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#FY#Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsSeptember18,2002 L XXF #FXX4#JOHNH.WILLIAMS,JR.v.KEVINMYERS,WARDENXXF  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWayneCounty  J @@No.12643JimT.Hamilton,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200200855CCAR3COFiledDecember20,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     ThePetitionerwasconvictedin1988offelonymurderandiscurrentlyservingalifesentence.After x  exhaustinghisdirectandpostconvictionappeals,thePetitionerfiledapetitionforawritofhabeas d corpus,whichthetrialcourtsubsequentlydenied.ThePetitionernowappealsthedenialofhis P petition,arguingthattheconvictingcourtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionduetoadefective < indictmentandthatthestatutegoverningfirstdegreemurderatthetimeofhistrialwas (x unconstitutionallyvague.Hecontendsthatforthesereasons,hisconvictionisillegal.Having d reviewedthePetitionersclaims,weconcludethattheoriginalindictmentuponwhichthe P Petitionersconvictionwasbasedwasnotdefectiveandthusthattheconvictingcourtwasnot < withoutsubjectmatterjurisdiction.WefurtherconcludethatthestatutegoverningthePetitioners ( convictionisnotunconstitutionallyvague.Wethereforeaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtin  denyingthepetitionforawritofhabeascorpus.#FXXٲ#XXFԀ   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     #FX #XX.FRobertW._Wedemeyer_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichThomasT._Woodall_and ` James_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,JJ.,joined. L  JohnH.Williams,Jr.,Clifton,Tennessee,ProSe. $"t! PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;andReneeW.Turner,AssistantAttorney #L# General,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. $8 $  @@OO& OPINION #FXXٹ #XXF &"& #FXX\ #  XXF  ThePetitioner,JohnHaroldWilliams,isservingalifesentenceforfelonymurder,having (#( beenconvictedofthecrimein1988.Ondirectappeal,thisCourtaffirmedthePetitioners )$) conviction,andtheTennesseeSupremeCourtdeniedpermissiontoappeal.SeeStatev.JeffLeon p*%* Walker,No.10,1990Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS686(Tenn._Crim_.App.,Jackson,Oct.17,1990). \+&+ ThisCourtalsoaffirmedthedenialofpostconvictionrelief.SeeJohnWilliamsv.State,No. H,', 02C019704CC00148,1997Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS812(Tenn._Crim_.App.,Jackson,Aug.27, 4-(- Wb W W  _1997);Statev.JohnHaroldWilliams,Jr.,No.02C019211CC00255,1993Tenn.Crim.App.  LEXIS872(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,Dec.22,1993).ThePetitionersubsequentlyfiledapetition  forawritofhabeascorpus,andthetrialcourtdeniedthepetition.Inthisproseappeal,\ b#  1      ׀the  Petitionerappealsthedenialofhispetitionforawritofhabeascorpus,arguingthathisconviction  isillegal(1)becausethetrialcourtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionduetoadefectiveindictment  and(2)becausethestatutegoverningfirstdegreemurderatthetimeofhistrialwassovaguethat   itwasunconstitutional.   @*  ArticleI,Section15oftheTennesseeConstitutionguaranteesitscitizenstherighttoseek [ ` habeascorpusrelief.InTennessee,a personimprisonedorrestrainedof[his]liberty,underany G L  pretensewhatsoever...mayprosecuteawritofhabeascorpus,toinquireintothecauseofsuch 38  imprisonment....Tenn.CodeAnn.2921101.Thegroundsuponwhichhabeascorpusrelief $  willbegrantedareverynarrow.SeeStatev.Ritchie,20S.W.3d624,630(Tenn.2000). Unlike    thepost-convictionpetition,thepurposeofahabeascorpuspetitionistocontestvoidandnotmerely   voidablejudgments.Pottsv.State,833S.W.2d60,62(Tenn.1992). Avoidjudgmentisonein   whichthejudgmentisfaciallyinvalidbecausethecourtdidnothavethestatutoryauthoritytorender   suchjudgment.Avoidablejudgmentisonewhichisfaciallyvalidandrequiresproofbeyondthe  faceoftherecordorjudgmenttodemonstrateitsvoidableness.Dykesv.Compton,978S.W.2d  528,529(Tenn.1998)(citingArcherv.State,851S.W.2d157,161(Tenn.1993)).Thus,awritof  habeascorpusisavailableonlywhenitappearsonthefaceofthejudgmentortherecordthatthe  convictingcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoconvictorsentencethedefendant,orthatthesentence kp ofimprisonmentorotherrestrainthasexpired.Archer,851S.W.2dat164;Potts,833S.W.2dat62. W\ Thepetitionerbearstheburdenofshowingbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethattheconviction CH isvoidorthattheprisontermhasexpired.Passarellav.State,891S.W.2d619,627(Tenn.Crim. /4 App.1994),supercededbystatuteasstatedinStatev.StevenS.Newman,No.02C019707CC   00266,1998Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS282,at*2n.2(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,Mar.11,1998).   Furthermore,theproceduralrequirementsforhabeascorpusreliefaremandatoryandmustbe  scrupulouslyfollowed.Archer,851S.W.2dat165.Itispermissibleforatrialcourttosummarily  dismissapetitionofhabeascorpuswithouttheappointmentofalawyerandwithoutanevidentiary  hearingifthereisnothingonthefaceofthejudgmenttoindicatethattheconvictionsaddressed  thereinarevoid.SeePassarella,891S.W.2dat627;RodneyBufordv.State,No.M199900487  CCAR3PC,2000Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS577,at*5(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,July28,  2000).Becausethedeterminationofwhetherhabeascorpusreliefshouldbegrantedisaquestion  oflaw,ourreviewisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness.Hartv.State,21S.W.3d901,903  (Tenn.2000).     I.VALIDITYOFINDICTMENT o t !  ThePetitionerscontentionthatthetrialcourtlackedtheauthoritytorenderthejudgment G L  againsthimisanissueappropriatelyraisedinapetitionforhabeascorpusrelief.Althoughinmost 38  instances,achallengetothesufficiencyofanindictmentisnotcognizableinahabeascorpus $  proceeding,seeHaggardv.State,475S.W.2d186,187-88(Tenn.Crim.App.1971);Tenn.R.Crim.    P.12(b)(2)(statingthat defensesandobjectionsbasedondefectsintheindictmentmustberaised   priortotrial), thevalidityofanindictmentandtheefficacyoftheresultingconvictionmaybe   addressedinapetitionforhabeascorpuswhentheindictmentissodefectiveastodeprivethecourt   ofjurisdiction.Dykes,978S.W.2dat529.Nonetheless,weconcludethatthePetitioners  argumentconcerningthevalidityofthecharginginstrumentiswithoutmerit.    Theindictmentatissueprovidesasfollows:  8   ` TheGrandJurorsofMadisonCounty,StateofTennessee,dulyelected, kp impaneled,swornandchargedtoinquireforthebodyoftheCountyofMadisonand W\ Stateaforesaid,upontheiroathpresent:CH   8  ThatJEFFLEONWALKER,JOHNHAROLDWILLIAMS,JR.andBETTYM. /4 PETERSONlateofthesaidCounty,heretofore,towit:Onthe_____dayofJULY   A.D.1986,andpriortothefindingofthisindictment,intheCountyandState   aforesaid,didunlawfully,willfully,feloniously,premeditatedly,maliciously,  deliberately,andoftheirmaliceaforethought,killandmurderSAMMAYHALLby  strikingandbeatingthesaidSAMMAYHALLwithatiretoolandaknife,amore  particulardescriptiontotheGrandJurorsaforesaidunknown,inviolationofSection  392202,TennesseeCodeAnnotated,andagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheState   ofTennessee....!   8  SECONDCOUNT:AndtheGrandJurorsaforesaid,upontheiroathaforesaid, g#l! furtherpresent:Thatonthedayandyearaforesaid,intheCountyandStateaforesaid, S$X" thesaidJEFFLEONWALKER,JOHNHAROLDWILLIAMS,JR.andBETTYM. ?%D # PETERSONdidunlawfully,willfully,feloniously,premeditatedly,maliciously, +&0!$ deliberately,andoftheirmaliceaforethought,killandmurderSAMMAYHALLby '"% strikingandbeatingthesaidSAMMAYHALLwithatiretoolandaknife,amore (#& particulardescriptiontotheGrandJurorsaforesaidunknown,whileinthe (#' commissionofafelony,towit:ARMEDROBBERY,inviolationofSection392 )$( 202,TennesseeCodeAnnotated,andagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateof *%) Tennessee.+&*   ЇAhandwrittennotewrittenbythetrialjudgeontheindictmentindicatesthatthefirstcountofthe  indictmentwasamendedtoapplyto Williamsonly.Inaddition,thetrialjudgestruckthewords   willfully,feloniously,premeditatedly,maliciously,deliberately,andoftheirmaliceaforethought  byhandfromthesecondcount.Therecordindicatesthatthetrialcourtstruckthelanguagefrom  thesecondcountbecauseitwas duplicitousinthatitcontainedelementsofbothfirstdegree  premeditatedmurder,allegedinthefirstcount,andfelonymurder.Afterconsiderablediscussion   bytheattorneysforbothsidesandthetrialcourt,bothofthesechangesweremadeduringtrial,with   theconsentofthedefense.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.7(b)( Anindictment...maybeamendedinall o t caseswiththeconsentofthedefendant.Ifnoadditionalordifferentoffenseistherebychargedand [ ` nosubstantialrightsofthedefendantaretherebyprejudiced,thecourtmaypermitanamendment G L  withoutthedefendantsconsentbeforejeopardyattaches.) 38    Asageneralmatter, [t]heindictmentmuststatethefactsconstitutingtheoffenseinordinary    andconciselanguage,withoutprolixityorrepetition,insuchamannerastoenableapersonof   commonunderstandingtoknowwhatisintended,andwiththatdegreeofcertaintywhichwillenable   thecourt,onconviction,topronouncetheproperjudgment....Tenn.CodeAnn.4013202.   Itiswellsettledthatanindictmentmustprovidesufficientinformation (1)toenabletheaccused  toknowtheaccusationtowhichanswerisrequired,(2)tofurnishthecourtadequatebasisforthe  entryofaproperjudgment,and(3)toprotecttheaccusedfromdoublejeopardy.Statev.Hill,954  S.W.2d725,727(Tenn.1997).Oursupremecourthasheldthattheabovecitedanalysisshouldbe  usedtodeterminethesufficiencyofindictmentsforbothpre-andpost-1989crimes.Dykes,978 kp S.W.2dat530. W\ ̀  ThestatutegoverningfirstdegreemurderwhichwasineffectatthetimeofthePetitioners /4 convictionprovided,inpertinentpart,asfollows::   8   ` Everymurderperpetratedbymeansofpoison,lyinginwait,orbyotherkind   ofwillful,deliberate,malicious,andpremeditatedkilling,orcommittedinthe  perpetrationof,orattempttoperpetrate,anymurderinthefirstdegree,arson,rape,  robbery,burglary,larceny,kidnapping,aircraftpiracy,ortheunlawfulthrowing,  placingordischargingofadestructivedeviceorbomb,ismurderinthefirstdegree.   Tenn.CodeAnn.392202(a)(1982).Thepre-1989felonymurderstatutedidnotrequirea   separatemensreaforthekilling.Seeid. !   WeconcludethattheindictmentinthiscaseclearlyapprizedthePetitionerofthecrimesof g#l! whichhewascharged,thatitfurnishedthetrialcourtanadequatebasisfortheentryofitsjudgment, S$X" andthatitprotectedthePetitionerfromdoublejeopardy.Theindictmentstatedthecrimescharged, ?%D # citedtheappropriatestatute,includedtheappropriatemensreaforthecrimeofpremeditatedfirst +&0!$ degreemurder,andspecifiedthemeansbywhichthecrimeswerecommitted.Specifictermswere '"% appropriatelydeletedfromthesecondcountoftheindictmenttoavoidchargingtheDefendanttwice (#& withthesamecrimeandtoaidthejuryinunderstandingwhichspecificcrimeswerecharged. (#' Furthermore,wefindnoerrorbythetrialcourtinmodifyingthefirstchargeoftheindictmentto )$( applytoonlythePetitioner.ThischangedidnotresultinanynewchargesagainstthePetitioner. *%) Finally,wenotethatthetwocountsoftheindictmentallegedalternativemeansofcommittingthe +&* sameoffense,murder.However,thePetitionerwasconvictedoffelonymurder,chargedinthe  secondcountasamended,butnotofpremeditatedfirstdegreemurder,chargedinthefirstcount.  Thus,hewasnotprosecutednorpunishedtwiceforthesameoffense,andhewasnotsubjectedto  adoublejeopardyviolation.SeeJamesE.Martinv.HowardCarlton,No.03C01-9807-CR-00253,  1999Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS560,at*11(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,June7,1999).Forthese  reasons,weconcludethattheindictment,evenasmodified,wasnotsodefectiveastodeprivethe   trialcourtofjurisdiction.     II.CONSTITUTIONALITYOFTHESTATUTE [ ` C  ThePetitionerssecondclaimisalsocognizableinahabeascorpusproceeding.Inhissecond 38  claimoferror,thePetitionerchallengestheconstitutionalityofthe1982firstdegreemurderstatute, $  arguingthatitissovagueand [c]onfusingthatitisunconstitutionalonitsface.Ifthestatutewere    unconstitutional,itwouldbevoidfromitsdateofenactment,seeCapriAdultCinemav.State,537   S.W.2d896,900(Tenn.1976),andtherefore,thetrialcourtwouldhavelackedthesubjectmatter   jurisdictiontohearthePetitionerscase,renderingitsjudgmentofconvictionvoid.SeeArcher,851   S.W.2dat160( [T]hewritisavailabletocontestconvictionsimposedunderunconstitutional  statutes,becauseunconstitutionallawisvoidandcan,therefore,createnooffense.).    Generally,thelanguageofapenalstatutemustbeclearandconcisetogiveadequatewarning  sothatindividualsmightavoidtheprohibitedconduct.SeeStatev.Boyd,925S.W.2d237,242-43 kp (Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Astatuteisvoidforvaguenessifitisnot sufficientlyprecisetoputan W\ individualonnoticeofprohibitedactivities.Statev.Thomas,635S.W.2d114,116(Tenn.1982); CH seealsoStatev.Wilkins,655S.W.2d914,915(Tenn.1983).Acriminalstatute shallbeconstrued /4 accordingtothefairimportof[its]termswhendeterminingifitisvague.Tenn.CodeAnn.   39-11-104. Dueprocessrequiresthatastatuteprovidefairwarningandprohibitsholdingan   individualcriminallyliableforconductthatapersonofcommonintelligencewouldnothave  reasonablyunderstoodtobeproscribed.Statev.Burkhart,58S.W.3d694,697(Tenn.2001)(citing  Graynedv.CityofRockford,408U.S.104,108(1972)).    Nevertheless,oursupremecourthasnotedthat absoluteprecisionindraftingprohibitory   legislationisnotrequiredsinceprosecutioncouldtheneasilybeevadedbyschemesanddevices. ! Wilkins,655S.W.2dat916;seealsoBurkhart,58S.W.3dat697.Todeterminewhetherastatute {"  isunconstitutionallyvague,acourtshouldconsiderwhetherthestatutesprohibitionsarenotclearly g#l! definedandarethussusceptibletodifferentinterpretationsregardingthatwhichthestatuteactually S$X" proscribes.Statev.Whitehead,43S.W.3d921,928(Tenn.Crim.App.2000).Astatuteisnot ?%D # unconstitutionallyvague whichbyorderlyprocessesoflitigationcanberenderedsufficiently +&0!$ definiteandcertainforpurposesofjudicialdecision.Wilkins,655S.W.2dat916(quoting '"% Donathanv.McMinnCounty,213S.W.2d173,176(1948)).Appellatecourtsarechargedwith (#& upholdingtheconstitutionalityofstatuteswhereverpossible.Statev.Lyons,802S.W.2d590,592 (#' (Tenn.1990). )$(   *%)   WeconcludethatthestatuteinthiscaseissufficientlyprecisetohaveputthePetitioneron   noticeofthechargesagainsthim.SeeThomas,635S.W.2dat116.Wealsoconcludethataperson  ofcommonintelligencecouldreasonablyunderstandwhatactsthestatuteproscribes.SeeBurkhart,  58S.W.3dat697.Thetermsofthestatuteareclear.Wethusconcludethatthestatuteunderwhich  thePetitionerwasconvictedwasnotunconstitutionallyvague.Inreachingthisconclusion,wenote  thattheTennesseeSupremeCourt,whilenotspecificallyaddressingtheissueofvagueness,has   upheldtheconstitutionalityofthepre1989felonymurderstatuteonthebasisthatit doesnot   violatethedueprocessclauseoftheFifthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.Statev. o t Middlebrooks,840S.W.2d317,336n.2(Tenn.1992)(citingStatev.Barber,753S.W.2d659,671 [ ` (Tenn.1988));seeStatev.Godsey,60S.W.3d759,773(Tenn.2001);Barber,753S.W.2dat671 G L  (holdingthatthepre1989felonymurderstatutewasnotunconstitutionalinthatitdidnotviolate 38  dueprocessordoublejeopardy). $    Accordingly,weAFFIRMthetrialcourtsdenialofthePetitionerspetitionforawritof   habeascorpus.   ̀   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     ROBERTW.WEDEMEYER,JUDGE