# FIL ED M arch 26 , 200 8 Cec il Crow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE A T JACKSON
A ND RE A

JON ES, ) ) Pet itione r, ) C . C . A . N O. 02C 01- 9611- CC -0 0406 ) v s . ) LA KE COUNTY ) STA TE OF T EN NE SSEE, ) No. 96- 7546 ) Res pondent
. )
O R D E R
This matte r is before the C our t upo n the st ate’ s mot ion to aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt und er R ule 20, Rul es of the C our t of C ri minal Appea ls
. The cas e before thi s C our

t represent s a n appea l from the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of the peti ti oner ’s peti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us. The record was filed on N ov ember 13, 1996, and t he pet it ion er fil ed hi s b ri ef on D ecember 3, 1996. The pet it ion er was origi nally indicte d on one coun t each of agg rav ate d rape and agg rav ate d kidna ppin g in September

1986, for w hic h the peti ti oner was subs eq uentl y

co nv icted. In the p re sent appeal , t he pet it ion er , rely ing i n par t upo n St ate v . R og er

D ale H il l, N o. 01 C01 -9 508- CC-0026 7 (Te nn. Cri m. App. June 20, 19 96), con ten ds the judgmen t ent ered against him is v oid bec ause the i ndi ctmentfail ed to al leg e the mens re a of the offense charg ed.

Havi ng rev iew ed th e stat e’s mo tion in light of the pe titione r’s respo nse and the en tire record on app eal, we conclude thatthe m otion is well-taken and shou ld be g ra nted. The t ri al jud g e di smi ss ed th e pet it ion er ’s peti ti on s tati ng that“ [a]l leg ati ons conce rning the suf

f iciency of

an indictm entare notsubjectto hab eas co rpus relief .” It is w ell es tabl is hed t hat c hal len g es to t he s uff ic ien cy of an i ndi ctmentca nnot be te ste d i n a ha be as c or pu s p roc ee di ng . S ee H ag g ard v . St at e, 4 75 S .W .2 d 18 6, 1 87 ( Ten n. C r i m. App. 1971) ; Brow n v . St ate, 445 S. W .2d 6 69, 6 74 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1969)
. A pane l of thi s C our

t recent ly

hel d the sa me i n a c api tal ca se. Ba rb er v . St ate, No. 01C 01- 9408- CR-0028 1 (Te nn. Cri m. App. , Feb. 2 3, 19 95).2 None the less, w e ha v e con sidered the sub stan ce of the pe titione r’s cl aim and dete rmine it to be w ithou t me rit. H ill represe nts a directapp eal f rom a case involv ing an i ndi ctmentrendered s ubseq uent to t he 1989 rev is ion s t o the C ri minal Cod e. Con v ersel y , t he appe al in the p re sentca se ste ms from a deni al of a peti ti on for w rit of hab eas co rpus an d involv es an indictm entissued prior to th e 19 89 ch anges in the C ode. The opi nio n i n H il l w as based upon thi s C our t’ s i nter pretati on of T.C. A. § 39- 11- 301( c) , w hic h was enact ed i n 1989. That sta tute prov ide s, in per ti nent par

t, that “[ a] culpa ble m ent al state is required w ithin th is title unless th e de f inition o f the of fense pla inl y di spens es w it h a ment al ele ment.” Pr ior to 1989, how ev er , t he C ri minal C ode did not cont ain a c omparabl e s tatut e. Acc ordin g ly , t he dec is ion i n H il l does not c ontrol our rev iew of the i ss ue rais ed herein
. At t he ti me of the offense i n thi s c ase, ag g ra v ated ra pe was defined a s the “ unl awful s ex ual penet ra ti on of anoth er ac compani ed” by

ce rt ain enumerated ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces , i ncl udi ng that“ [f]orc e or co erci on i s u sed to ac compl is h the actand the d efendant i s a rmed w it h a weapon.” T.C .A. § 39- 2- 603 ( 1982)
. Fur ther more, anyone w ho unl awfully

se iz e[d], co nfine[d] , i nv eig le[ d], enti ce[ d], decoy [ed], abduct[ed] , c oncea l[ ed], ki dnap[pe d] or ca rr ie[ d] away

anot her w it h the feloni ous int ent t o: (1) Cause the othe r to be con f ined secretly against his [or he r] w ill; (2 ) Det ain the other

ag ain st his [or

her ] w il l; or (3) Send the ot her ou t of state against his [or her] w ill, shal l be g uil ty

of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng w hen one or more of the follo w ing ci rc umstan ces are present :

. . . (C ) The person sec re tl y co nfined, unl awfully

deta ine d or

se nt ou t of the sta te i s t he v icti m of any felony co mmitt ed on his [or

her ] person dur ing the s ecret c onfinement, unl awful det enti on or ca rr y ing out of the s tate; (D ) The sec re t c onfinement, unl awful det enti on or ca rr y ing out of the s tate is ac compl is hed w hil e defendant is ar med w it h a d eadl y w eapon. T .C.A. § 3 9-2-30 1(a) (1982 ). T h e in d ic t m e n t s a tis s u e b e fo re u s ch a rg e d t h a tt h e p e t it io n e r “ d id u n la wf u ll y, feloni ousl y

and forci bly , w hil e ar med w it h a weapon, to-w it , a pis tol , s ex ual ly penet ra te [the v icti m], by

maki ng her

per form an a ct of fell ati o upon him, thereby co mmitt ing the3

cr ime of AGGRAVATED RAPE, ” and “ did unl awfully , felon iou sl y abduct [ the v icti m], an d w hil e det ain ing her

ag ain st her

w il l,
. . . di d c ommit the fel ony of AGGRAVATED RAPE, upon t he person of [the v icti m], an d di d the re by co mmit the c ri me of AGGRAVATED KID NA PPIN G.” Thi s l ang uag e was suffici ent u nder the law as i t ex is ted a t t he ti me. As not ed a bove, the Cri min al Code did notconta in a provisi on sim ilar to § 39-11 -301 (c) (1 9 8 9 ). T h e st a t u t o ry re qu ire m e n t s fo r a n in d ic t m e n twe re fo u n d in § 4 0 -1 8 0 2 (n o w § 40- 13- 202 ( 1990) ), w hic h prov ide d s impl y that : T he ind ictme nt m ust sta te th e facts con stitutin g the of fense in ordin ar y and conc is e l ang uag e, w it hout proli x ity or repeti ti on, i n s uch a ma nne r as to ena ble a pe rson of comm on u nde rstand ing to know w hatis int ended, and w it h tha t deg re e of cer tai nty w hic h w il l enabl e the co urt, on conv icti on, t o pronounc e the proper j udg ment.
Fur ther more, i n C ampbel l v . St ate, 491 S. W .2d 3 59, 3 61 ( Tenn. 1973 ) (e mphasi s s uppl ied ), w hil e address ing the suffici ency of an i ndi ctmentch arg ing the o f fe n se of m u rd e r, ou r Su p re m e Co u rtst a te d th e fo llo wing: W hil e i t s eems c lea r that the i ndi ctmenti n W itt was insuf

f icient in that itfail ed to ch arg e an ele ment, that the murder was commi tted unl awfully , i n ei ther

the lan g uag e of the sta tute or co mmon la w

or words of eq uiv ale nt i mport , t he dec is ion i s c onfusin g bec ause of the l ang uag e, ‘fatal ly defecti v e i n omi tti ng the charg e tha t t he offense was commi tted feloni ousl y , or

w it h mal ic e aforet houg ht; and c ontai nin g no words of equiv alen t impo rt.’ It is clear , howev er , t hat h ad th e i

ndictm ent u sed the words ‘ feloni ousl y’ or ‘ unl awful ly ’ , it would hav

e been suf

fici ent. W e ag re e w it h thi s p ro posi ti on. By co ntai nin g the words found in the l ang uag e of the statu te, th e indictm entat issue he re suf f iciently app rised the app ellantof the of fense charged un der the law

at the time, and is therefore valid. Thu s, the petitio ner’s atta ck mu st fail.
For the rea sons sta ted abo v e, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of

the Cou rt of

Cri min al App eals, th at th e judgme nt of the trial court dism issing the petitio n for w rit of hab eas co rpus is af

f irmed . Costs of

this app eal sha ll be a ssessed against the petitio ner.

Enter , t his the ___ day

of Janua ry , 199 7.4 _________

_________

_________

_______ JOE B. JON ES, PR ESID IN G J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

_______ PAU L G. SU MM ER S, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

_______ DA VID G. H AY ES, JU DG E