# FIL ED M arch 26 , 200 8 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr
. A ppell ate Court Clerk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON FEB RU ARY1997 SESSI ON
RO BER T GLEN C OE, ) ) C. C. A. N O. 02C 01- 9 6 0 6 -CR- 00200 Appel lan t, ) ) SH EL BY

C OU N TY V S ) ) JOHN P. COLT ON, STATE OF TENN ESSEE ) JU DG E ) A p p e ll e e
. ) (P o s tCo n vic t io n - D e a t h P e n a lt y)

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E; RO BE RTC . I RB Y CH A RL ES W. B UR SON 4345 M all or

y Av enue E ast Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter Me mphis , TN 38111 JOH N P. C A UL EY Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 JOHN W. PI EROTTI Di str ic t At tor ney

Gene ra l JOHN CA MPBELL Ass is tant Di str ic t Atto rn ey Gene ra l 201 Po pla r Av enue, 3rd F loo r Me mphis , TN 38103

OP IN IO N F IL ED :

A FF IR ME D - RU LE 20 OR DE R

J OE G. RIL EY, JUD GE O R D E R2 Appel lan t, Rob ert G len C oe, a p p e a ls f ro m the dis mis sal of his thi rd pos tconv ic ti on reli ef peti ti on. He has been conv ic ted o f f irst deg re e murder , ag g ra v ated
ra pe, and agg ra v ated ki dnapi ng
. He w as sent enced to death for first deg re e murder and r e c e i v e d tw o s e n t e n c e s o f l i fe i mp r i s o n me n tfo r t h e o t h e r

c h a rg e s
. C oe cont ends the t ri al cour

t erred in dis mis si ng his peti ti on and pr esent s t o thi s C our t t he fo ll o win g i s s u e s fo r r e vie w:

( 1) w hether

the sta te w it hhel d ex cul pator y ev ide nce and p re s e n t e d m is le a d in g t e s t im o n y; ( 2) w hether

the use of the felony -murder ag g ra v ati ng circumsta nce ren dere d the dea th pe nalty uncon stitutio nal; (3) w het her the jury

instruction def ining “reaso nab le dou bt” w as un const itution al; (4) w het her the jury

instruction on f irst degree mu rder omi tted an es sent ial el ement of the offense; ( 5) w hether

he w as deni ed th e fundamental r ig ht t o a un ani mous j ur

y v erdic t; (6) w het her the jury

instruction on expert testim ony w as unco nstitu tiona l; ( 7) w hether

the jur y w as uncon sti tuti onal ly i nst ru cte d on t h e e f fe c to f a ve rd ic to f

n o tgu il t y b y re a s o n o f in s a n it y; ( 8) w hether

the jur y i nst ru cti ons pr ecl uded full co nsi derati on o f t h e d e fe n s e o f

in s a n it y; ( 9) w hether

the failu re to ins tr uctthe jur y aboutel ig ibi li ty for parole w as un const itution al; ( 10) w hether

the jur y i nst ru cti ons er ro neous ly omi tted infor mati on abou t t he effect of a non- unani mous v erdic t; ( 1 1 ) w h e t h e r

h e w a s d e n i e d e ffe c t i v e re v i e w o f the d eath sent ence; ( 1 2 ) w h e t h e r

h e w a s d e n i e d e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f couns el at t ri al and on appeal , i ncl udi ng the deni al of ent itlem entto investig ative fu nds; (1 3) w hether

el ect ro cut ion co nst it utes cr uel and unusu al puni shment ; (1 4) w hether

he w as uncon sti tuti onal ly precl uded f rom co nsultin g w ith cou nsel du ring trial; (1 5 ) wh e t h e r t h e d e a t h se n t e n c e u n c o n s t it u t io n a ll y infr ing es upon hi s fundamenta l ri g ht t o l ife; an d (1 6) w hether

he w as ar re ste d w it hout probabl e c ause.Robert Glen Coe v. Ricky Bell, No. 3:92-0180 (M. D. Te nn. filed Nove mber 27, 1 1996, at Nashville). 3 W e aff ir m the dis mis sal of the p eti ti on.

PROCEDURA L HISTORY

Coe w as found g uil ty of first deg re e murde r, ag g ra v ated ra pe and ag g ra v ated ki dnapi ng i n 19 8 1

. T he Tennes see Supreme C our t affirmed the c onv ic ti ons and
s en te nc es i n 19 83

. A

p et i ti on f or

w r i t of c er

ti orar i t o th e U ni te d St at es S up r em e Cou rtw as deni ed i n 1984. Hi s first peti ti on for post -c onv ic ti on rel ief w as filed in 1984. The di smi ss al of tha t pet ition w as af

f irmed byt his Court in 198 6. I n 198 7 Coe f iled a pe tition for w rit
o f habeas

co rp us i n the U nit ed St ates D is tr ic t C our t for the M idd le Di str ic t of T enn essee . Th at pet ition w as dism issed w ithou t prejud ice in March 198 9 for failure to ex haustst ate remedie s. In May 1989 Coe f il ed a sec ond petit ion for p ost -c onv ic ti on reli ef w hic h w as den ied by the trial court in Novembe r 198 9. T he d enia l w as af f irmed bythis Court in Janu ary 199 1. T he Ten nesse e Sup reme Court denied perm ission to appe al in Nov ember

1991. I n F e b r u a r

y 1 9 9 2 C o e fi l e d h i s s e c o n d f eder al p e t i t i o n fo r w r i to f habeas
cor pus in the Uni ted Stat es Di str ic t Cou rt for the Mi ddl e Di str ict of Tenness ee. W h i l e t h e fe d e r a l w r i to f hab eas co rpus w as pendi ng , C oe fil ed th is , his thi rd peti ti on for post-co nviction relief , on Feb ruary 21, 199 5. On Janua ry 2, 1996 , the trial court dism issed th e subject pet ition fo r post -conviction relief f inding tha t all claims w ere time -barred or w aived. It is this dismissal tha t is the subje ct of the current ap pea l. On Novembe r 27, 19 96, the Unite d Sta tes D istrict Court v acat ed all of Coe’s
conv ic ti ons and s entenc es. The s tate w as all ow ed 120 day s from the entr y of that 1
o rd e r t o a ffo rd C o e a n e w

t r i a l ; o t h e r

w i s e , t h e w r i to f habea s co rp us w il l is sue.

DI SPOS IT IONThis claim is not a “later arising ” cla im under B urfor d v. St at e, 8 4 5 S.W .2d 204 2 (Tenn. 1992)

. See Sands v. State, 903 S.W .2d 297 (Tenn. 1995). This c ourt in Fre eman v. J eff coat, C.C.A. No. 01A01-9103-CV-00086 (Te nn. Crim. App. filed August 30, 1991, at Na shvil le ) a

uth orize d a c c e ss t o p oli c e re c ord s purs ua nt t o th e pu

bli c re c or ds a c t. T his petition was filed more than three(3) year s after this opini on. 840 S.W .2d 317 (Tenn. 1992)

. 3 State v. Coe, 655 S.W .2d at 913. 4
4 I n o rd e r t o b e su c c e s s f u l i n t h is a p p e a l, Co e m u s to ve rc o m e a tle a s ttwo sta tutor y l imi tati ons. F irstl y , t he presentpeti ti on mus t hav e been ti mely fil ed. See T. C. A. § 40- 30- 102 ( 1990)

. Seco ndl y , t he g ro unds for reli ef must no t hav e been “p re v iou sl y

dete rmi ned” by

a c our t of co mpetent j u ris dic ti on nor “ w aiv ed” by

the failu re to pr esentthem in pr ior pro ce edi ng s. See T.C. A. § 40- 30- 112( a) , ( b) (1 ) (1 990)

. Is s ue s 1 , 2, 3 , 4, 6 , 8, 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , an d 17 h av e be en p r ev i ously deter mined by

the Uni ted Stat es Di str ic t Cou rt for the Mi ddl e D is tr ic t of Tenness ee. In fact , C oe w as suc ces sful in v acat ing his co nv ic ti ons and s entenc es based upon
some o f these is sues
. Reg ardle ss , t hey hav e been pr ev iou sl y

dete rmi ned. As t o I s s u e 1 c o n c e r n i n g e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e , t h i s c l a i m i s a l so ti mebar re d. 2 As to I ss ue 2, St ate v . M idd leb ro oks does not appl y
. There w as adeq uate 3 proof of premedi tati on bey ond a reason abl e doubtto sus tai n a c onv ic ti on for common l aw

murder

. Stat e v . C oe, 6 55 S. W .2d 9 03, 9 12 ( Tenn. 1983 ). There w as no doub le count ing

. See Scha d v . Ariz ona , 501 U. S. 624 (19 91). As to I ss ues 3 throug h 10, a ll o f thes e i ss ues hav e ei ther been w aiv ed, pr ev iou sl y

dete rmi ned on directa p p e a l a n d /or ti me-ba rred. Fur

ther more, our

rev iew of these is sues i ndi cat es each to be w it hout meri t. As to I ss ue 11 re lat ing to the a ll eg ed deni al of an eff ect iv e rev iew of the death sent ence, the is sue has been w aiv ed, p re v iou sl y dete rmi ned on directappeal by the Tenness ee Sup re me C our t and is ti me-ba rred. 4 As to I ss ue 12, C oe’ s cl aims of ineff ect iv e assi sta nce of couns el hav e been
wa ive d a n d a re t im e -b a rr e d

. W it h re ga rd t o t h e re qu e s tfo r f u n d s fo r i n ve s t ig a t iveState v. Coe, 655 S.W .2d at 913. 5 Sin c e Coewa s su c c e ssf

ul i n th e Un ite d St ate s D ist ri c t Co ur t in havin ga ll o f h is 6 c onvic tio ns and

se nte nc e s v a c ate d, it is c e rt a inl y argua blethat th is e nti rea

pp e a l is no w m oo t. We do not reac h this issue, howe ver, sincethe appe al is without merit for the other rea sons set forth in this order. 5 purp oses, Coe has n ot m ade a prope r thre s h o ld s h o w ing of the ne ed for such funds. See Ow ens v . St ate, 908 S. W .2d 9 23 ( Tenn. 1995 ). As to I ss ue 13 all eg ing thatel ect ro cut io n c o n st it utes cr uel and unusu al puni shment , t his i ss ue has been w aiv ed, p re v iou sl y determi ned on di re ct appeal by the Te nne ssee Su prem e Court and is time-barred

. Furthe rmore , the allegation is 5
w it hout meri t. As to Issu e 14 relating to t he alleged de nial of access to co unse l during tri al, thi s i ss ue has been w aiv ed and is ti me-ba rred. As to Is su e 1 5 al leg ing the death penal ty depr iv es Coe of his fundamental rig ht to life , this is s ue h as be en waiv ed a nd is time -barred. This issue is also
w it hout meri t. As to I ss ue 16 all eg ing C oe’ s o ri g ina l ar re st w as unl awful, t his i ss ue has been w aiv ed and is ti me-ba rred. As to Issu e 17 w hich is a b road allegation th at th e cum ulative ef fect of errors
re ndered th e tr ia l f u n d a m ental ly unfair , t his i ss ue has been w aiv ed and is ti mebar re d. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s A FF IR ME D pursuant to R ule 20, Tenness ee Court of Cri min al App eals. 6

JOE G. R ILEY , J UD GE
CONCUR:

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

JOH N H. PEA

Y , J UD GE