IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON GARY RUSSELL, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9712-CC-00475 ) vs. ) MADISON COUNTY STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) No. C96-362 ) FILED Respondent. ) August 31, 1998 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 in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The record has been filed and the petitioner, by and through counsel, has filed his brief. This case represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s post-conviction petition.1 The petitioner is challenging the sufficiency of the indictment. Specifically, the petitioner claims the indictment charging him with aggravated sexual battery is void because it fails to allege the requisite mens rea.2 In Kimmel v. State, No. 02C01-9701-CR-00006 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jan. 12, 1998), faced with this very issue, this Court held that the indictment was constitutionally and statutorily sufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, having reviewed the petitioner’s brief in light of the entire record on appeal, we find that the trial court did not err by dismissing the petition. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the state’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial 1 After he filed his petition for post-conviction relief, the petitioner filed what is styled “amended petition for a w rit of habea s corpu s.” The issue rais ed in this plea ding is the s ame as in the po st- conviction petition. The trial court’s order denying relief, however, does not distinguish between the two pleading s. Rega rdless, the petition for w rit of habea s corpu s was filed in the wron g court, see T.C.A . § 29-21-1 05, and, th erefore , would oth erwise h ave bee n dism issed. 2 The indictment reads, in pertinent part: “by the use of force did unlawfully engage in sexual condu ct with [the victim ] and cau se bod ily injury to [the victim].” court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. _______________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE _______________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE _______________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE 2