# FIL ED M arch 4, 1997 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 JACK SON
RONA LD L. PA RKER, ) ) Pet itione r, ) C . C . A . N O. 02C 01- 9612- CC -0 0468 ) v s . ) LA KE COUNTY ) BILLY COMPTON, WA RDEN, ) No. 96- 7562 ) 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 D ecember 17, 199 6, an d the petitio ner f iled his brief on Jan uary 8, 1997 . Th e pe titione r was originally ind icted o n two c ounts of sec ond deg re e burg lar y i n N ov ember

1987, and w as convicted of

the sam e in 198 8. In th e prese nt ap pea l, the pe titione r, rely ing i n pa rt upon S tate v . R og er

D ale H il l, N o. 01 C01 -9 508- CC -0 0267 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. Ju ne 20, 1996) , c ontends the jud g ment ent ered ag ain st 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, se cond deg re e burg lar y w as defined a s t he “ breaki ng and enter ing i nto a dw ell ing hous e . . . , by day , w it h the i ntent to c ommit a felony .” T.C .A. § 39- 3- 403 ( 1982)
. The in dictments at is sue before u s charged th at th e pe titione r d id co m m itt h e o f

fe n s e o f b u rg la ry i n t h e se c o n d d e gre e b y u n la wf u ll y, feloni ousl y

and burg lar iou sl y

breaki ng i nto a nd ent er ing the dw ell ing house of [the v icti m] i n the day ti me w it h i ntentunl awfully , felon iou sl y and burglariously to ta ke, ste al, an d carry aw ay the person al prope rty therein cont aine d an d did felon iously and burglariously take, steal, an d carry aw ay [s aid proper

ty]. This l ang uag e was suffici ent u nder the law as i t ex is ted a t t he ti me. As n oted abov e, the C ri minal C ode di d notco ntai n a p ro v is ion si mil ar to § 39- 11- 301( c)( 1989)
. The sta tutor y req uirements for a n i ndi ctmentw ere found i n § 4 0- 1802 ( now § 40 -1 3- 202 (1 990) ), 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 w as insuf

f icient in3 that itfail ed to ch arg e an ele ment, that the murder w as 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 w as 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 w ords 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 Febr uar

y , 199 7.

_________

_________

_________

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

_________

_________

_________

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

_________

_________

_________

_______ JOE G. R ILEY , J UD GE