# FILED January 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE DECEMB ER SESSION, 1997
RANDY BLAINE KNIGHT, ) C.C.A.NO. 03C01-9705-CR-00162 ) Appe llant, ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) V. ) ) HON.LYNN BROWN,JUDGE HOWARD CARLTON,WARDEN, ) ) Appellee. ) (HABEAS C ORPU S)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : RAND Y KN IGHT , pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP N.E.C.C. #101642 Attorney General& Reporter P.O. Box 5000 Mountain City , TN 37683 TIMOTHY F.BEHAN Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvill e, TN 37243 DAVID CROCKETT Distri ct Attorney General Route 19, Box 99 Johnson City, TN 37601

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION

The Appe llant, Ra ndy B laine K night, a ppea ls as of ri ght from the t rial court’s dismissal of his Petition for Habeas C orp us Relief. We affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.

The record shows t hat on Dec ember 1 2, 1983, Appell ant was convictedof two counts of second degree bur glary, one count of grand larceny,
one count o f aggrav ated rape , and one co unt of agg ravated k idna ppin g. He received an effect ive sentenceof seventy (70) years

in the Tennessee Department of Correctio n. On September 11, 1996, he fil ed the peti tion for writ of habeas corpus relief wh ich is the subject of this appeal. I n essence, Appell ant argues that the i ndictment char ging allof the off

enses is voi d because the culpab le men tal state for e ach offen se was not allege d in the ind ictmen t.

The first count of t he indict ment, chargingAppellant with second degree burglary , allege d that he di d “break and enter a dwell ing house duri ng the dayti me . . . wi th t he felonio us intent to c omm it a felony there in, to-wit: larceny . . . .” The seco nd count of t he indict ment charged Appell ant with t he cri me of grand larceny and alleged t hat the proper ty was taken “with t he feloni ous intent to perm anently d eprive the said true o wner the reof.” The third coun t of the indict ment charged secon d degr ee bu rglary b y allegin g that th e App ellant d id “felonio usly break and enter a dwelli ng house bydaytime . . . with t he feloni ous intent to com mit a felon y therein, to-w it: an aggra vated rap e . . . .” The fou rth count of the indi ctment charged t hat the Appell ant committed aggr avated rape and tha t he did “felo niously, se xually pen etrate another, to-wit : [vi ctim] and t hat-3-

force or coerc ion was used t o accomplish the act . . . .” The i ndictment f urther alleged that he was armed with a .25 c aliber pisto l, caused person al injury to the vi cti m, and pe netrated her gen ital area with his finger. The fift h count of t he indict ment alleged that A ppellant committed the of fense of aggrav

ated kidna ppin g and included allegat ions that he did “sei ze, confi ne, invei gled, enti ced, decoyed, abducted, concealed, ki dnapped or carri ed away, [vi ctim] with the felo nious inten t to cause the said [vic tim] to b e con fined s ecretly , again st her w ill or to de tain the said [victi m] against her will . . . .” The indictm ent furth er alleg ed se rious b odily injur y t o the vict im and that a deadly weapon was used duri ng the commission of the crim inal act.

Coun ts 1, 2, 3, and 5 plainl y and clearly alleged t he App ellant’s felonious

intent to sa tisfy any req uireme nts of all egationsof the appropriate mens rea . Appellant places the most emphasi s in his argum ent on the fourth count of the indict ment, which alleges in ful l as follows:
The Gran d Juro rs for the State a nd Co unty afo resaid , upon their oath present and say that Rand y Blaine Knigh t on or a bout the 24 day of July , 1983, inthe State and C ounty afores aid did unlaw fully and feloniously, sexually pen etrate another, to-wit: [vict im] and that force or coercionwas use d to accomplish the act and t hat the defendantwas armed with a weapon, to-wit : a .25 cal iber autom atic pistol. The d efenda nt cause d perso nal injury to th e said [victim ]. The defend ant’ s penis touch ed he r genita l area a nd he did penetra te her genitalarea with h is fin ger se veral tim es, an d did injure herby striking h er with his g un, and biting her, co ntrary to the Statute, [a]gainst

the peace and dignit

y of the State of Tennessee.
In support of

his argument, Appellant r elies upon t he decision of this Court in State v. Rog er Da le Hill , C.C.A. No. 01C 01-95 08-CC-00267, Wayne-4-

Coun ty (Tenn . Crim. A pp., Nas hville, June 20, 199 6). H owe ver , ou r su pre me court reversed t his Court’ s decision i n Hill
. Se e State v. Hill , 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn . 1997).

Furthermore, a panel of this Co urt has previ ously h eld in a simil ar case thatthe ruli ng of this Court in State v. Rog er Da le Hill , was based upon an interpr etation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-301(c) , which was enacted in 1989. See Gregory L. Hatton v. State of Tennessee , C.C.A
. No. 02C01-9611-CC-00407, slip op. at 2, Lake County (Tenn. Cri m. App., Jackson, Feb. 19 , 1997).

As in Hatton , Appellant was convicted of an of fense which occurred prior to enactm ent of the 1 989 revis ions to the Crimina l Code. We conclude that the langu age in the ind ic t ment charging appel lant wit h various of fenses was sufficient

under the law as it exi sted at the time of t he offenses.
Appe llant’s petiti on may be dismissed sum marily if the pe tition fails to state a co gnizab le claim. See Passa rella v. State , 891 S. W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994 ); State exrel. Byr d v. Bomar , 381 S.W.2d 280, 283 (Tenn. 1964); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109. The trialcourt properly dismissed Appellant’ s petiti on.

The judgment of the t rial cour t is af firmed.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge-5-

CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , Judge

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge