# FILED September 10, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JULY SES SION, 1997
WILLIA M LEW IS HOWELL ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9703-CR-00095 ) Ap pella nt, ) ) ) KNOX CO UNTY VS. ) ) HON. RAY L. JENKI NS STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appell ee. ) (Post- Convict ion)

ON AP PEA L FROM THE J UDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF KNOX C OUNTY
FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : LESLI E M. J EFFRESS JOHN KNOX W ALKUP 1776 River

vi ew Tower Attor ney General and Reporter 900 S. Gay Street Knoxvi ll e, TN 37902 MARVI N E. CLEMENTS , J R. Assist ant Attor ney General Cordell Hull Buil ding, 2nd Floor 425 Fifth A ven ue N orth Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 RAND ALL E. NICHOLS Dist ri ct Attor ney General CHARME JOHN SON Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al City -CountyBuil ding Knoxvi ll e, TN 37902
OPINION FILED ________________________ REVERSED AND REMANDED DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE1 See Sta te v . W illiam Ho we ll, alia s W illiam Le wis Ho we ll , C.C .A. N o. 11 13, K nox Co unty (T enn . Crim . App., Knoxville, June 30 , 1987). 2 The origi nal pe ti ti on for p ost-co nvi cti on rel iefis no t fo und in the record on appea l. Both t he amended petit ion, which i s in t he record , and t he tr ial judge’ s order of di smissal, reci te t hat t he ori ginalpeti ti on was fi led November 30, 1988. -2-



# OPINION

The De fend ant a ppe als a s of righ t from the tr ial co urt’s dism issa l of h is peti ti on forpost- convi cti on rel iefwit hout conducti ng an e v ident iary heari ng and wit hout consi deri ng the meri ts ofthe pet it ion. W e reverse the j udg m ent of t he tri al courtand remand this case for f urther proceedings.

The De fend ant w as o rigina lly conv icted on a jury verd ict o f agg ravat ed sexual batt ery and was sentenc ed to ser ve th irty ye ars as a n e sp ec ially aggravat ed offende r. This court affi rmed his c onvi cti on on direct appeal in 1987. 1 The De fen da nt a pp are ntly fi led a t imelypeti ti on for post- convi cti on rel iefall eging thathe recei ved i neff ecti ve assi stance of tr ial cou ns el. 2 The tr ial courthas never conducted an e viden tiary he aring on th e m erits of t he peti ti on for post- convi cti on relief.

Th is is t he second t ime thatthe tri al court has di smissed t he peti ti on for post- convi cti on relief. T he tria l judge first dism isse d the petition for “failure to prosecut e” in an order dat ed November 16, 1995 . Afterthe Def endantappealed thatdismis sal, the St ate acknowl edged thatthe di smissal was not s upport ed by the record and as ked that t he case be r emanded to the tri al court f or f urt her considerati on. Th is Co urt gra nted the S tate’s m otion , p ointi ng out t hat t he tr ial court had not set f orth i n its o rder o r a w ri tt en memorandum all grounds-3-

present ed in t he petit ion wit h findi ngs o f factand concl usions of l aw regardi ng each grou nd a s req uired by law . Te nn. C o de Ann. § 40- 30-118(b ) (repealed 199 5). Ifthe t ri al cou rt a gain det ermined t hat t he peti ti on should be dismi ssed wit hout an evide ntiary h earin g, the cou rt was direc ted to “ente r an a ppro priate ordersetting forth its find ings and its concl usions of l aw as to eac h oft he cl ai ms rai sed in t he peti ti on.” This order was ent ered by thi s Court o n Apri l 15, 1996.

On October 9, 1996, t he tr ial court , apparentl y act ing sua spo nte , enter ed a new orderdismis sing t he pe tit ion. This was done wi thouta heari ng and ap pa ren tly wit hout anynoti ce to t he Defendantor hi s appoint ed counsel . A f ew days aft er t he entry ofthe tr ial court ’s order di smissi ng the pet it ion a se cond ti me, De fen da nt’s appoint ed counsel fi led a moti on requ esti ng th e trial co urt to reconsi derit s dismi ssal. Aft er hear ing a rgumen t on the m otion the trial cou rt denied the requ est, stating “W ell, at this juncture I’ve d ec ide d th at it ought t o be dismis sed, and ifthe CourtofCrim inal A ppe als in its inf ini te wi sdom decides t hat it nee ds to be s ent b ack , then I’ll hear it; oth erw ise n o.”

It is readil y apparen t t hat t he tr ial courtdid notadhere t o orcomply wi th t he orderof t his Court r emanding this c ase on Ap ri l 15 , 19 96. For t hisreas on, we must again reverse the order ofthe t ri al court di smissi ng the peti ti on an d a ga in remand thi s case f or f urt her consi derat ion.

In the order di smissi ng thi s case afterthi s Court h ad remanded itto t he tr ial cou rt, the t ri al j ud g e stat ed as reasonsfordismis sing t he peti ti on the f oll owing:-4- From the i nit ial fi li ng of t his pet it ion, the def endant/peti ti oner has had 26 heari ng dates assig ned and thr ee att orneys appoint ed to repre senthim at hi s request . On the lastheari ng date, November 16, 1995, the def endant/peti ti oner agai n request ed a new att orney and the Courtdismis sed the pet it io n. As a resul t t he Court f inds t hat the defendanthas been f urni shed adequate t ime and suff ici ent l egal assistance to prosecute t his pet it ion, thathe has ref used and fai led to prese nt any p roof sus taining his a llegations tha t would s upp ort post- convi cti on relief, tha t he h as fa iled to carry his burden of proof eit herby pre ponderance ofthe ev idence or clear and convi ncing proo fan d h as i nd ee d a ba nd on ed hi s c l ai m. As a res ult the de fen da nt/p etitio ne r’s P etitio n is w itho ut m erit i n ea ch a nd e ve ryi nst anc e an d t he s ame i s ag ai n DI SMI SSED.
As we have not ed, t his pos t-c onvi cti on peti ti on was fi led on November 30, 1988, an d th e tria l cou rt ha s ne ver c on du cte d a n e vide ntia ry he arin g o n or addressed the merit s of t he all egati ons orgrounds f or rel iefrai sed in t he peti ti on. D uri ng the ent ir e ti me this p eti ti on has been pendi ng in t he tr ial court , t he Defendanthas re ma ined inca rc era ted i n the Tennessee Department of Correct ion. The record o n appe al does not r efl ect whya heari ng was not conducted on an y of th e “tw en ty-six hea ring d ates ” referre d to by t he tr ial judge. Ob viously, the Def endantcannotpresentany pr oof i n supportof hi s all egati ons unless and unti l an ev ident iary heari ng is c onducted, wit h the Defendantpresent and aff orded t he oppo rtunity to p res en t tes tim on y or o the r evid en ce . Th ere is nothi ng in t his record to supp ort the t ri al court’ s fi nding t hat t he Defendanthas abandoned his c lai m. W hil e the Def endan t’s peti ti on for post- convi cti on rel ief may well be tota llywit hout meri t, ther e is s implynothi ng in t his r ecord t hat sup ports this find ing b y the tria l judge
.
Forthe reasons s tat ed in t his opi nion, we concl ude thatthi s case must be ag ain remanded to the t ri al court f or f urt her consi derat ion. W e also c onclude t hat the int eres ts o f f air ness, jus ti ce and j udi ci al e conomy wo uld be be tter s erve d if-5-

a judg e oth er tha n the trial judg e wh o ha s twice dism isse d this p etition c ond ucts suc h furth er pro cee ding s.

The jud gm en t of th e tria l cou rt is reversed and thi s case i s remanded for furtherproceedi ngs. Upo n remand, t he Honorabl e Ray L. J enkins shall be recus ed from further con sideration of this ma tter.

___________________________________ DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE

___________________________________ JOHN K. BYE RS, SENI OR JU DGE