# FILED
September 10, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON AU GUST SESSION , 1997

GARY L. COOPER, ) ) No. 02C01-9610 -CC-00334 Appellant ) ) LAKE COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. JOE G. RILEY, JR., Judge BILLY COMPTON, WAR DEN, ) ) (Writ of Habeas Corp us) Ap pellee )
For the Appell ant : For the Appell ee : GAR Y L. COOP ER , Pro Se CHA RLES W. BUR SON L.C.R.C.F. , Rt 1, Box

330 Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter Tiptonvill e, TN 38079 CL IN TO N J . M OR GAN Assistant Att orney Gener al Criminal J ustice Div ision 450 James Roberts on Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493
C. PHILLIP BIVENS Distric t Attorney General P. O. Box E Dyersburg, TN 38024

OPINION FILE D: AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO R ULE 20

David G . Hayes Judge2 OPINION
The appellant, Gary Cooper, ap peals the trial court's dismissal of his pro se petition for w rit of habeas cor pus. On April 25, 1994, the appell ant pled guil ty to one count of rape i n the Knox Co unty Cri minal Court an d was senten ced to eight ye ars incarc eration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant filed th e instant petit ion on August 19, 1996, alleg ing that the j udgment entered against him is void because the i ndictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged. The t rial court properly dismissed the petition on the basis that "all egations conc erning the s ufficiency of the i ndictment are not the proper subjec

t of habeas corpus r

elief." See Haggard v. State , 475 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971); Brown v . State , 445 S. W.2d 669, 674 (Tenn. C rim. App. 1969); Barber v. State , No. 01C01-940 8-CR-00281 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashvil le, Feb. 23, 1995) . According ly, w e affirm the trial court's dis missal of the petition.
Moreover, upon further review, we find the substance of the appellant's claim wi thout merit. I n order for an i ndictment to sati sfy both consti tutional and statutory guidelines , it must contai n the material e lements of the offense and must sufficiently

apprise the accused of the offense he is called upon to defend. State v. Tate , 912 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App . 1995); see also Tenn. Code Ann. §40-13- 202 (1990); State v. Per kinson , 867 S. W.2d 1, 5 (Tenn . Cri m. App. 1992). As a pplicable to t he present case, rape is defined as the "unlawful sexual penetr

ation of a vic

tim by the defendant" and "force or coercion is used to accomplish the act." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-501(a) (1) (1991). No requi site mental state is included in the definition of the offense. W hen the legislature fails to define a spec ific mental statein the definiti on of an offense, proof of either intent, knowledge, or recklessness suff ices to establish the culpable mental state. Tenn. C ode Ann. § 39-11-30 1(c)(1991) . Accordin gly, t he3

accused's mental state is not a material element of the offense and need not be included in th e indictment. State v. Di son , No. 03C01-960 2-CC-00051 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Jan. 31, 1997). Other pane ls of this court have upheld the validi ty of indict ments under simi lar challen ges. See e.g. , Slagle v . State , No. 03C01-9704- CR-00145 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvil le, June 25, 1997) ; State v. Vann , No. 03C01-960 2-CC-00066 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, June 10, 1997); State v. James , No. 01C01-960 1-CR-00016 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashvil le, Mar. 27, 1997); State v. Burrell , No. 03C01-940 4-CR-00157 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvil le, Feb. 11, 1997)

.

The indictment in the present cas e, reads, in pe rtinent part: . . . That Gary

Cooper. . . unlawfullyand feloniously did sexually penetrate [the v ictim] . . .b y force and coe rcion. . . . (emphasis in original). Contrary to the appellant's assertions, th e allegations in the indictment s ufficiently appr ise the accuse d of the offense of rape. Consequently , we find the i ndictment val id.

The trial cour

t's dismiss al of the appellant' s petition for w rit of habeas corpus is affirmed pu rsuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HA YES, Judge

CONCUR:4

___________________________________ JERRY L. SMI TH, Jud ge

___________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL , Judge