State v. Tarrell Lowe ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
TARRELL LOWE, )
)
Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9812-CC-00386
)
vs. ) LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
)
) No. 98-7837
FILED
)
Respondent. ) March 22, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the trial
court judgment in this case pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
This case represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus. In 1990, the petitioner pled guilty to charges of assault to
commit first degree murder (T.C.A. § 39-2-103 (repealed)). The petitioner appealed his
convictions and has previously filed a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Lowe,
No. 22, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App., Feb. 27, 1991); Lowe v. State, No. 02C01-
9309-CR-00198 (Tenn. Crim. App., Oct. 19, 1994).
In the current proceeding, 1 the petitioner claims the statute under which
he was convicted is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to define the terms
“assault” and “murder in the first degree.” These terms are themselves criminal
offenses clearly defined by the legislature elsewhere in the criminal code. T.C.A. § 39-
2-103 (repealed) is not unconstitutionally vague. See, e.g., VanArsdall v. State, 919
S.W.2d 626, 632 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (statutes should be construed to give effect
to legislative intent). Cf. T.C.A. § 39-11-104 (1997) (criminal statutes “shall be
construed according to the fair import of their terms, including reference to judicial
decisions and common law interpretations, to promote justice, and effect the objectives
1
Contrary to the state’s argument, this is an appropriate matter for consideration in a habeas
corpus procee ding. See Herron v. State , No. 02C01-9805-C C-00153 (Te nn. Crim. App., Oct. 19, 1998).
of the criminal code”) Accordingly, the petitioner’s claim is without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in
accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Costs of this
proceeding shall be taxed to the state.
_____________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
_____________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
_____________________________
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
2