FILED

February 6, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

DECEMBER SESSION, 1997

EDDIE E. GLENN, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9703-CC-00115

Appellant, )

)

) UNION COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. LEE ASBURY

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE

CRIMINAL COURT OF UNION COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

EDDIE GLENN, Pro Se JOHN KNOX WALKUP

Route 4, Box 600 Attorney General and Reporter

Pikeville, TN 37367-9243

CLINTON J. MORGAN

Assistant Attorney General

425 5th Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

WILLIAM PAUL PHILLIPS

District Attorney General

CLIFTON S. SEXTON

Assistant District Attorney General

P.O. Box 10

Huntsville, TN 37756

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
-2-

ORDER

The Petitioner, Eddie E. Glenn, appeals the trial court’s denial of his

petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he argues that the trial court

failed to word its order of dism issal adequately and urges this Court to remand

to the trial court to evaluate his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fully.

The Petitioner filed his first petition for post-conviction relief on August 30,

1991, which was denied by the trial court on May 28, 1993, and which was

affirmed by this Court on March 8, 1995. State v. Eddie Glenn, C.C.A. No.

03C01-9311-CR-00362, Union County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, March 8,

1995). The Petitioner’s second petition for post-conviction relief was filed on

December 1, 1994 and was dismissed by the trial court on October 29, 1996. It

is from the order dismissing his second petition for post-conviction relief that the

Petitioner appeals.

After reviewing the record in this case, including this Court’s opinion on the

first post-conviction petition and the allegations raised in the second petition, we

must conclude that the general issue of ineffective assistance has been

previously determined and that any additional claims regarding that issue have

been waived. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-112(a) (repealed). It appears that the

Petitioner now raises additional facets of ineffective assistance and new evidence

he alleges were not previously presented because trial counsel and postconviction counsel did not properly investigate. However, our supreme court has

determined that a petitioner is bound by the action or inaction of counsel in prior

post-conviction proceedings on the application of defenses of waiver and
-3-

previous determination. House v. State, 911 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tenn. 1995).

Therefore, any failure by the Petitioner or his prior counsel in presenting all

grounds for relief in a prior proceeding results in a waiver of those issues in any

subsequent post-conviction proceeding. Thus, the Petitioner’s claim of improper

jury instructions has been waived. We also conclude that the waiver issue was

previously determined in this Court’s opinion in the Petitioner’s first postconviction proceeding. Thus the petition for post-conviction relief was properly

dismissed.

We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings

of the trial judge and that no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is

apparent on the record. Based upon a thorough reading of the record, the briefs

of the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of

Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

____________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

___________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE