# FILED
December 31, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE OCTOBER 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9711- CR-00538 Appellee, ) ) Davidson County V. ) ) Honorable W alter C. Kurtz, Judge ) JAMES THOMAS JEFFERSON, ) (Resentencing: First Degree Murder) ) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: Karl F. Dean John Knox Walkup Metro Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter Jeffrey A. DeVasher Timothy Behan Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney Gener al 1202 Stahlman Building 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201 Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III District Attorney General Roger Moore Assistant District A

ttorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 Second Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201 OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMM ERS, Judge

O P I N I O N-2- The defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree p remeditated murder; the same jury si multaneously sentenced him to for ty years incarcer

ation. On direct appeal this Cour t affirmed the defendant's conviction but remanded the matter for resentencing. See State v. Jefferson , 938 S.W.2d 1, 23 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1996

). On re mand the d efendant was sentenced b y a jur y to li fe imprisonment. In this direct appeal the defend ant contends that the trial court erred when it 1) denied his motion to impanel a jury to determine his guilt or innocence; 2) admitted into evidence the minute ent ry from the prior trial which showed the jury's v

erdict of guilty but from w hich had been redacted its imposition of the forty year sentence; and 3) instructed the jury that the on ly sentence it could impose was life imprisonment. Finding no merit in these complaints, we affirm the judg ment of the trial court.

The defendant first contends that because thi s Court previously found the convicting jury's verdict “void,” he is entitled to a new trial on the issue of his guilt or innocence. He argues, “Since the jury at [hi s] 1993 trial was ex posed to inaccurate sentencing information, its verdict as to both guilt and innocence is void.” We disagree. In the initi al direct appeal of this matter this Court held as follows: In this case, the verdict returned by the jury was void

because the punishment set by the jury was below the minimum punishment for the of fense of murder in the first degree. The trial court did not have the authority to change the j ury's verdict from forty (40) years to confinement for life in t he Department of Correction. Since the j ury found the appellant guil ty of premeditated murder and the evid ence contained in the record supports the v erdict, the verdict of the jury finding the appell ant guilty of premeditated murder is affirmed. Howev er, this case must be remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. Jefferson , 938 S.W.2d at 23 (fo otnote omitted). Prior to so holding this Court noted, but obviously declined to adopt, the defendant's arg ument that “if the punishment was below the minimum punishment for murder in the fir st degree, .-3- . . the judgment of the trial c ourt [should be reversed] and remand[ed] for a new trial.” Id. at 20. Clearly, then, this Court has already decided that the convicti ng jury's verdict

is not void in its entirety but only as to sentencing. Signific antly, our Supreme Court denied the defendant's appl ication for permission to appeal from this decision.
On resentencing, the tri al court denied the defendant's motion for a jury to determine his guilt or innocence on the basis of the judic ial doctrine of “the law

of the case.” The trial court was correct. As noted by our Supreme Court in Clements v. Pearson ,

< A ruling or decision once made in a particular case by an appellate court, while it may be overruled in other cases, is binding

and conclusive both upon the inferior court in any further steps or proceedings in the same litigation and upon the appellate court itself in any subsequent appeal or other proceeding for review. A ruli ng or decision so made is said to be “the law of the case.” ' 352 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Tenn. 1961) (quoting Black 's Law Dictionary , Third Ed.). The doctrine applies to issues that were actually

before the court as well as to issues that were necess arily decided by i mplication, see Ladd v. Honda Motor Co. , 939 S.W.2d 83, 90 (Tenn. App. 1996), and it applies t o decisions that the Supreme Court has declined to r eview. Id. at 91. Clearly the doc trine applies here and this issue is ther efore without merit.
The defendant next complains about the minute entry of the convicti ng jury's verdict admitted into evidence at the resentencing. Upon the state's motion and over the defendant's objec tion, the trial court r

uled that the minute entry should have redacted from it the jury's assessment of the def endant's punishment at “forty year s in the penitentiary.”

The defendant claims that the redacted document misled the sentencing jury and “falsel y indicated” to it that the convicting jury had not earlier sentenced the defendant. W e are unpersuaded. The convicting jury's sentence of the defen dant was clearly-4- irrelevant in the context of his resentencing. “Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Tenn. R. Ev id. 402. The only evidenc e of the prior jury's ac

tion which was relevant in the context of the resentencing proceeding was its verdict of guilt. The redacted minute entry accurately reflected that inf ormation. This issue is without meri

t.
Finally, the defendant contends that the trial court err ed when it instructed the jur y, “The sentenc e for mur

der in t he first

degree is the sentence of life imprisonment.” We disagree and retu rn to this Court's earlier opinion in this matter: “In summary, this Court is bound by the Supreme Court's decision in Miller [v. State , 584 S.W.2d 758 (Tenn. 1979),] that the only possi ble punishment for first degree murder is life imprisonment.” See Jefferson , 938 S.W.2d at 21. Thus, the trial court did not err in so instructin g the resentencing jur y. This issue is without merit.
The judgment of the trial court i s affirmed.

__________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Ju dge
CONCUR:-5- _____________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPT ON, Judge

_____________________________ JOE G. RILEY, Judge