This is the rehearing of an appeal from a district court order which granted relief to the appellee, Robert Pryor, on a petition for habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court held that the imposition of consecutive sentences for assault with intent to commit robbery with a deadly weapon and assault with intent to commit first degree murder violated the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. It therefore granted the writ as to the conviction for assault with intent to commit first degree murder. We affirm.
I.
Pryor was tried in the Criminal Court of Shelby County, Tennessee. The record reflects that on August 20, 1977, John Winbush was at a manufacturing plant in Memphis. As he walked through an alley behind the plant in search of cigarettes, he encountered the petitioner. Winbush testified that the following events then occurred:
A. Okay, uh-huh. He called me — came up to me just like that, so I turned and walked away from him. So he hit me right here (indicating). It burst this a loose and knocked me down, got blood all in my eyes and everything. ’Course however this has been sewed up now, you know. Since I went to the hospital and everything. Then after he knocked me down he start beating on me with that pipe, that stick, or whatever you call it, you know. And ah, the money that I had in my front pocket he went in there and got that.
Q. All right, Mr. Winbush, you stated that you were struck with a cane or metal—
A. Yeah, something made like a walking stick.
Q. Let me hand you this object and ask if you can identify it?
*527A. Yeah, that’s what he had. He had it in his hand when he called me up to him. That’s right, show did and start beating me with this thang. After he knocked me down, kept on beating me and he told me, I’m going to kill you man, I’m going to kill you. Give me some more money.
‡ # if: sfc %
Q. All right sir,—
A. He kept telling me that, at the time he was beating me with this (indicating).
Q. Mr. Winbush, how many times were you struck with this pipe?
A. Well, all I know, I was hit lots of times with that pipe I couldn’t just say exactly how many times. I know I was hit a lots of times with it. I couldn’t tell you the exact amount of licks that he did hit me with it. I’d say quite a few times, he did.
Two indictments arose from this incident. The first accused the petitioner of assaulting Winbush with the intent to commit a willful, malicious, deliberate and premeditated murder. The second indictment charged Pryor with robbery with a deadly weapon. At trial, the jury found the petitioner guilty of assault with intent to commit first degree murder and imposed a penalty of six to twenty-one years imprisonment. The jury also found Pryor guilty of assault with intent to commit robbery with a deadly weapon, a lesser included offense of robbery with a deadly weapon. It affixed a sentence of ten to twenty-one years imprisonment. The trial judge ordered that these sentences be served consecutively.
Under then applicable Tennessee law, the jury was entitled to convict Pryor on the first indictment only if the petitioner would have been guilty of first degree murder had the victim died. Accordingly, Tennessee’s first degree murder statute is relevant:1
39.2402. Murder in the first degree. — An individual commits murder in the first degree if:
(1) He commits a willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing or murder;
(2) He commits a willful, deliberate, and malicious killing or murder, and:
(a) The victim is an employee of the department of correction having custody of the actor,
(b) The victim is a prison inmate in custody with the actor,
(c) The victim is known to the actor to be a peace officer or fireman acting in the course of his employment,
(d) The victim is a judge acting in the course of his judicial duties,
(e) The victim is a popularly elected public official,
(f) The offense is committed for hire; or,
(g) The offense is committed while attempting to evade law enforcement officials;
(3) He hires another to commit a willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing or murder, and such hiring causes the death of the victim; or
(4) He commits a willful, deliberate and malicious killing or murder during the perpetration of any arson, rape, robbery, burglary, larceny, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.
In defining first degree murder, the trial judge instructed the jury under options 1 and 4 of this statute:
An individual commits murder in the first degree if: (1) he commits a willful, deliberate, and malicious and premeditated killing or murder; or (4) he commits a willful, deliberate and malicious killing or murder during the perpetration of any arson, rape, robbery, burglary, larceny, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a de*528structive device or bomb. When the act of killing is not done in the commission of some one of the felonies named in the definition of murder above, in order that it be murder in the first degree, the killing must be done willfully, this is, of purpose, with the intent that the act by which the life of the party is taken, should have that effect; deliberately, that is, with a cool purpose; maliciously, that is, with malice aforethought; and with premeditation, that is, a design to kill must be formed before the act is performed, by which death is produced. In other words, proof must be adduced to satisfy the mind of the jury that the death of the party slain was the ultimate result which the concurring will, deliberation and premeditation of the party accused sought. [Emphasis supplied.]
The petitioner contends that the felony-murder theory contained in the instruction permitted the requirement of premeditation to be satisfied by a finding of intent to commit robbery. He argues that the two crimes for which he was convicted are thus the “same” for double jeopardy purposes, and that he therefore can neither be convicted of both crimes nor given consecutive sentences.
II.
Before considering the merits of this question, we must address the appellant’s claim that certain state court findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness under Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 101 S.Ct. 764, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). The parties agree that the double jeopardy clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals held, however, that the offenses committed by Pryor were not the same:
The proof accredited by the jury verdict clearly establishes there was an assault and taking of the money from the victim’s front pocket- Then after appellant had knocked the victim down and gotten his money, appellant told the victim, “I’m going to kill you man, I’m going to kill you. Give me some more money.” ... The appellant had completed the assault with the intent to commit robbery when the money was taken.
Appellant resumed beating the victim and expressed the intent to kill. The jury adduced from the facts the appellant intended to carry out this new exclamation. There were two separate and distinct offenses committed. [Citations omitted.]
The appellant argues that since the petitioner does not rely on any of the exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the quoted statement is a finding of fact which is binding on this court. We disagree. Whether multiple crimes committed during a single transaction are the same offense under the standard approved by the Supreme Court is a question of law. The presumption of correctness attaches neither to state court conclusions of law, Marshall v. Lonberger,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 843, 849, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983), nor to state court applications of law to the facts of individual cases. Sumner, 449 U.S. at 544, 101 S.Ct. at 767. Moreover, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals was not entitled to examine the evidence or arguments actually introduced at trial in deciding whether the offenses were the same for double jeopardy purposes. The court should instead have focused on the proof necessary to establish the statutory elements of each offense. See Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 416, 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2265, 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980); Pandelli v. United States, 635 F.2d 533, 538 (6th Cir.1980). Consequently, this court will fully review the petitioner’s double jeopardy claim.
III.
In Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), the Supreme Court adopted the rule of statutory construction set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), for determin*529ing whether two offenses are the same under the double jeopardy clause:
The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not....
As has been indicated, this test focuses upon the proof necessary to establish the statutory elements of each offense, rather than on the specific evidence or arguments presented at trial. See, e.g., Vitale, 447 U.S. at 416, 100 S.Ct. at 2265. If two offenses are not the same under this standard, cumulative sentencing is permissible. Conversely, the Supreme Court has held that if two offenses are the same under this test, consecutive sentences are forbidden unless there is a clear indication of legislative intent to the contrary. Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 692, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 1438, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980). Consecutive sentences are permissible where such an intent is clearly expressed because “the question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is not different from the question of what punishments the Legislative Branch intended to be imposed.” Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1145, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981). The underlying theory is that since legislatures possess the prerogative to set criminal penalties, Whalen, 445 U.S. at 689, 100 S.Ct. at 1436, a criminal defendant does not receive multiple punishments for an offense unless a court imposes a greater penalty than provided for by statute.
The current case therefore presents two questions. First, we must determine whether the two crimes for which Pryor was convicted are the same offense under the Blockburger test. If so, we must consider whether the Tennessee legislature intended consecutive sentences for the two crimes.
Under the rationale of Pandelli, supra, Tennessee’s first degree murder statute is a “multi-purpose criminal statute” because it seeks to punish four different categories of unlawful killings. Consequently, before the court may apply the Blockburger test to this statute, the court must select from the latter only those alternatives that are relevant to this case. Pandelli, 635 F.2d at 537-38; see also Whalen, 445 U.S. at 694, 100 S.Ct. at 1439. The first alternative concerning willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killings is relevant because it is the theory reflected in the indictment. The fourth alternative concerning felony-murder also is relevant because the trial judge included it in his instructions to the jury.
The appellant argues that the only relevant alternative is that upon which the indictment was grounded. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has addressed this issue. Although the published opinions discuss the various indictments under which the defendants were prosecuted, none considered the problem of a variance between the indictment and the jury instructions.2 We hold that since a jury is presumed to look to its instructions for guidance in discharging the grave responsibility of ascertaining the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, see Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 73, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 2139, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979), a trial judge’s instructions are too important to be ignored in deciding what portions of a multi-purpose statute should be subjected to double jeopardy analysis. We acknowledge that it is pure speculation whether or not the jury relied upon the felony-murder instruction to convict the petitioner. Nevertheless, the possibility that the jury did indeed rely upon the instruction requires that the fourth alterna*530tive of the Tennessee statute be scrutinized under the Bloekburger test.3
Under most circumstances, assault with intent to commit first degree murder and assault with intent to commit robbery with a deadly weapon are different offenses within the meaning of Bloekburger because each requires proof of a fact which the other does not. The elements of assault with intent to commit first degree murder are: (1) intent to commit a willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing and (2) an overt act. See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-604 and 2402(1). Assault with intent to commit robbery with a deadly weapon contains the elements of: (1) intent to commit robbery and (2) an overt act involving the use of a deadly weapon. See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-607 and 3901. In the present case, however, the felony-murder instruction allowed intent to commit first degree murder to be supplied by a finding of intent to commit robbery. Under these circumstances, proof of assault with intent to commit first degree murder no longer required proof of a fact which assault with intent to commit robbery with a deadly weapon did not.4
The appellant responds that under the felony-murder alternative of Tennessee’s statute, the state still had to prove willfulness, deliberation and malice, none of which it had to prove in order to obtain a conviction for assault with intent to commit robbery with a deadly weapon. The Tennessee courts have held, however, that the felony-murder provision allows willfulness, deliberation, malice and premeditation to be supplied by the commission of the underlying felony. Claiborne v. State, 555 S.W.2d 414, 419 n. 1 (Tenn.Cr.App.1977); Tosh v. State, 527 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Tenn.Cr.App.1975). Accordingly; we hold that the crimes for which the petitioner was convicted were the same offense under the Bloekburger test.
This conclusion requires us to discuss whether the Tennessee legislature has clearly indicated a desire that these offenses nevertheless be punished in cumulative fashion. The statute itself contains no such specific indication of intent and the appellant has not cited any legislative history. The appellant correctly argues, however, that we must consider the pronouncements of the Tennessee Supreme Court on this subject. See Missouri v. Hunter,U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 673, 679, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983).
In State v. Briggs, 533 S.W.2d 290, 292-93 (Tenn.1976) (Briggs I), the court made the following statement in construing Tennessee’s first degree murder statute:
We find neither reason nor authority for holding that one who commits murder during the perpetration of a felony named in the T.C.A. § 39-2402(4) cannot or should not be convicted and punished for both the offense of murder in the first degree and for the named felony. Nothing in the statutory definitions of *531murder in the first degree and of the felonies listed in T.C.A. § 39-2402(4) indicates a legislative intent that conviction and punishment for both offenses should not be permitted.
Thus, the Tennessee Supreme Court inferred legislative intent to permit consecutive sentences from the absence of evidence on the subject. This approach is wholly unacceptable under Whalen, which requires that the legislature “clearly indicate” that consecutive sentences are permissible for offenses which are the same under the Blockburger test. Furthermore, if lack of evidence of intent were to constitute a clear indication of a desire to cumulate punishments, then consecutive sentences would automatically be permissible under most statutes proscribing offenses which are the same for double jeopardy purposes. Such a result would render the Whalen requirement meaningless.
Secondly, we note that Briggs I subsequently was overruled in Briggs v. State, 573 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn.1978) (Briggs II). The appellant responds that Briggs I was overruled because of a misapplication of Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977), and that the state court in Briggs II did not retract its statement concerning legislative intent. Even assuming that the statement concerning legislative intent in Briggs I remains good law, a debatable question which we do not reach, the statement fails to satisfy the Whalen standard. We therefore hold that the Tennessee legislature has not clearly indicated that consecutive sentences are proper in the situation presented by this case.
IV.
Since application of the Blockburger test to the felony-murder instruction compels the conclusion that the crimes for which Pryor was convicted are the same offense, and since the state legislature has not clearly indicated that these crimes should be punished in cumulative fashion, giving the instruction subjected the petitioner to double jeopardy. The judgment of the district court is Affirmed.
. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39.2402. This provision has since been amended. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-2-202.
. Although Pryor did not object to the felony-murder instruction at trial, he is not procedurally barred from raising the issue in federal court. The Tennessee Court of Appeals considered this question on the merits. See County Court v. Alien, 442 U.S. 140, 147-49, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2219-20, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979). Moreover, the appellant has not raised the procedural default issue.
. The dissenting opinion contends that the felony-murder instruction was a mere citation to a legal concept “for the purpose of explaining or distinguishing the indicted offense” and that the trial judge did not invite the jury “to consider the felony murder language as a basis for a verdict against Pryor....” We disagree. The trial judge nowhere indicated that the reference to felony murder was only included in order to differentiate it from willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated murder. To the contrary, the court clearly instructed that first degree murder could be proven under two theories, one of which was felony murder. The jury therefore was “invited” to convict Pryor on a felony murder theory.
A second problem inherent in the dissent’s position is that even if it were assumed that the felony-murder instruction were surplusage, the dissent would approve of jury instructions containing irrelevant and potentially confusing material unless the trial judge specifically told the jury to consider the material. The purpose of jury instructions is, of course, to clarify the issues and to inform the jury of the applicable law. Jurors, who are unskilled in the criminal law, should not be misled by irrelevant instructions or burdened with the task of determining which of their instructions are pertinent and which are not.
. Had the trial judge not given the felony-murder instruction and had the jury nevertheless convicted the petitioner of both offenses, the judge could have ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. In that situation, the commission of the robbery could not have supplied the intent to commit first degree murder.