### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

JOHN E . C AR TERv. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for John son Coun ty No. 4632 Lynn W. Brown , Judge

No. E2005-01296-CC A-R3- HC - F iled October 7, 2005

The pe titioner, J ohn E. Carter
, appeals from the tria l court' s order construing his untit led pleading

a s o ne fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s a nd de ny ing re lie f. Th e state ha s file d a mot ion re qu e sti ng that th is
court a ffirm the tria l court' s denial of r elief pur suant to Rule 20 of t he R ules of t he C ourt of Criminal Appea ls. The petitioner ha s fai l ed to establish that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief. Acc ording ly , the state' s motion i s g rante d and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J
., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.

J ohn E. Carter , Mountain City , Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Paul G

. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Seth P. Kestner, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

I n 1982, the petitioner was convicted by a jury for two counts of first deg ree murder. U pon these c onvictions, the trial court sente nced the petitioner to two consec utive life sentenc es. On dire ct appea l, the judgme nts were aff irmed. See State v. J ohn E. Carter , No. 83-114-I I I (Tenn. Crim. App. Fe b. 20, 1985). The pe titioner subsequently s o u gh t p ost-conviction re lief base d on a cla im of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. His petition was dismissed following an evidentiary hearing a nd thi s c ou rt a ff ir me d the de c isi on on app e a l. I n the int e re st of jus tic e , h ow e ve r, thi s c ou rt va c a te d it s Fe bruary 1985 judgme nt affir ming the petitioner’s m urder convictions and re enter ed its judgme nt to permit th e p e ti ti o n e r a n o p p o r tu n it y to s e e k s e c o n d

- ti e r ap p e ll a te r e v ie w o f it s ju d g me n t. The petitioner soug ht permission to appeal thi s court’s judg ment, and the Te nnessee Supreme Court denied his applica tion. See J ohn E. Carter v. State, No. 89-27-I I I (Tenn. Crim. App. F eb. 9, 1990), app. denie d (Tenn. July2, 1990). F urther, a s the petit i o n er ac k n o wledg es in his pleading , he has

unsucce ssfully

challeng ed his convictions in “at lea st eleven (11) separate proce eding s” t hroug h the fi lin g of pe tit ion s f

or ha be a s c or pu s, c or a m no bis , a nd

/or po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f, inc lud ing mul tip le-2-

motions t o reope n his post-conviction petition, all raising varia tions of the claims he pre sents here

.

Most rece ntly , on April 12, 2005, t h e p et i t i o n er f iled a plea ding sty led as a n “Untitled Mo tio n/P e tit ion ” in w hic h h e a sse rt e d th a t hi s mu rd e r co nv ic tio ns we re ob ta ine d in vio la tio n o f h is constitutional rights to due proc ess. I n particula r, t he petitioner a rg ued that his convictions wer e based on imprope r interpr etations of state law u n d er which the e lements of pre meditation and deliberation were improperly commingle d and which pr evente d him from presenting a defe nse of dim ini sh e d c apa c ity

at tr ial

. Th e pe tit ion e r a sse rt s th a t th e se are a s o f the la w w e re su bs e qu e ntl y

c lari fi e d b y

la te r d e c isi on s o f o ur

su pr e me c ou rt

a ndc on te nd s h e is thu s e nti tle d t o a n “ a de qu a te

corr ective pr ocess” to present his claims befor e this c ourt or to ha ve his judg ments vacated and the

case rema nded for

a new trial. The trial court construed the pleading as a petition f or writ of habe as

c or pu s. F ind ing tha

t it fa ile d to c omp ly

wi th the ma nd a tory

statut ory requ ir e me nts app lic able to habea s corpus pe titions and fa iled to state a cog nizable c laim f or re lief, the trial c ourt dismissed the pleading . The pe titioner timelyappea led.

Be fore this court, the petitioner first takes issue with the trial court’s tre atment of his petition

a s o ne fo r h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f, a sse rt ing that he wa s the re by de nie d the op po rtun ity to f ull y lit ig a te his c onstitut ional claims. Although the petitioner’s claims are constitutionallybased, w e conc lude that the t rial court corr ectly construed and denied the petit ioner’s pleading as one for ha beas c orpus relief . Construing the ple ading as one f or post-convic tion relief in the pr esent c ase w as not an option in this case. As no t ed
, t h e petitioner has pr eviously soug ht post-conviction relief and his petition was de nied on the merits following a full hearing of the petit ioner’s claims. The petiti oner is thus barr ed by the sing le-pe tition provisi on from attac king the same judg ment in a second or subseque nt post-conviction proc eeding . See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102( c). I n the alternative, the trial court

corr e c tl y n o te d th a t th e p le a d in g f a il s to s a ti s f

y th e ma n d a to r y

r e q u ir e me n ts f

o r s e e k in g h ab e as

c or pu s r e lie f. Se e Te nn . Co de An n. §§ 29 -2 1- 10 7( b) (2 ), (3 ), (4 ). Mo re ov e r, the pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims of improper

or uncle ar inter

preta tions of l aw do not present c og nizable claims for ha beas c orpus relief . As furthe r noted, the pe titioner has broug ht numerous pre vious post-conviction, habea s corpus a nd other manne r of c halleng es to h i s co n v i ct ions in which variations of the c laims he prese nts here w ere reje cted. We surmise that this led the petiti o ner to file the instant “untitled
mot ion/pe tit ion ” wh ic h w e mus t c on c lud e sim ila rl y a va ils him

no re lie f. F or

e a c h o f the se re a so ns , we c onclude that the tr ial court prope rly dismiss ed the plea ding.

Upon due c onsideration of the p l eading s, the rec ord, and the applicable law, the c ourt conclude s that the petitioner has not e stab l i s h ed that he is entitled to habea s corpus re lief. Acc ording ly
, the state’s motion is g rante d. The judgme nt of the trial court is affirme d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R, J UDGE