### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

ERIC T. A RM ST R ON G. v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Circuit Courtfor Will iam son Coun ty No. CR031006 R.E. Lee Davies, Judge

No. M2007- 01393-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Dece m ber 13, 2007

The Appe llant appea ls the trial court' s dismis sal of his petition for post conviction re lief. The Appellant has pr esente d a new claim on appe al. The Court c oncludes that the c laim is waived due to Appellant' s failure to raise it in his petition below. Accor dingly , the judg ment of the trial court is af firmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., joined.

An g e la R. H oo ve r, fo r t

he Ap pe lla

nt. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Renee W. Turne r,Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION

In J anuar y 2003, the Appellant wa s convicted of espec ially

ag g ravated kidnappingand ag g ravated robbe ry , and he r ece ived an e ffe ctive six teen year sentenc e. See State v. E ric T. Armstrong , No. M2003-00762-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL1208871 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jun. 2, 2004), per

m. to app. denied, ( Tenn., Nov. 15, 2004) . The Appe llant timely filed a pe tition for post-conviction re lief on Mar ch 30, 2005. The Appellant asse rted seve ral grounds for r elief, including a

n ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim. The tr ial court issued a preliminary

order appointing c ounsel. Howe ver, c ounsel subsequently filed a c ertificate statingthat, upon her revie w of the c ase, the orig inal petition prepar ed by the Appellant, pr o se, ra ised all non-fr ivolous g rounds war

rante d and she w ould not be filing a n amende d petition. Following a hearing on the petition, the trial court conc luded that the Appe llant was not entitled to post-conviction relief

. The Appe llant appea led, and the State ha s filed a motion to affir m the judgme nt of the trial cour t pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. F or the re asons stated be low, the Court finds this mot ion to be well-take n.2

In his brief on a

ppeal, the A

ppellant pre sents one assignment of er ror, that he was de nied eff ective a ssistance of c ounsel bec ause c ounsel failed to r equest a n instruction on a lesser included off

ense. Similarly , he cla ims itwas plain e rror for the tr ial court not to g ive the instruction despite the lac k of a r equest. Although the Appellant r aised seve ral grounds for r elief i nh i s p et i t i o nb el o w, i n cl u d i n g a c l ai mo f i n ef fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce o f c o un s el , h e d i d n o tal l ege fac ts supporting the a

rgument he pre sents now for the first time on appea l. The State conte nds that this particular ground for relief has bee n waived be cause the issue was not pre sented to the post-conviction cour

t. In response , the Appellant a sserts that the plain er ror doc trine pre serve s the issue for c onsideration by this Court on appeal. See Te nn. R. Crim. P . 52(b). The Appe llant did not include the alleg ation that his trial counsel fa iled to reque st a jury instruction on the lesser inc luded offe nse in the cla im of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel set fo rt h in the po st- c onvic tio n p e tit ion re vie we d b y

the tr ia l c ourt . A c c or din g ly , b e c a us e thi s specific alleg ation is raised for the first time on appe al, the Appe llant has waive d consideration of the issue. See , e.g ., Charles Or lando Fie lds v. St ate, No. W2003-02051-CCA-R3-PC, 2004 WL1405012 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jun. 23, 2004), perm. to app. de nied, (Te nn., Dec . 20, 2004). This Court is precluded f

rom addre ssing this claim. I d. The Appe llant does not challeng e in any oth e r r e sp e c t th e tr ia l c ourt ' s r uli ngon his pe tit ion

fo r p os t- c onvic tio n r e lie f. Th is C ourt mus t, the re fo re , a ff

ir m th e de nia l. C ontr ary

to t he Ap pe lla

nt' s a sse rt ion , Ru le 52 (b ) d oe s n ot p e rm it this Court t o revie w the issue ra ised in his appellate br ief. " [T] he plain er ror doc trine has no application in post-conviction re lief proc eeding s." Corwy n E. Winfield v. St ate, No. W2003- 00889-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 W L 22922272 (Tenn. Crim. App., De c. 10, 2003), pe rm. to app. denied, ( Tenn., May

10, 2004) (c iting State v. West, 19 S.W .3d 753, 756-57 (Te nn. 2000)).

For the re asons stated a

bove, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

____________________________________ DAVI D H. WEL L ES, J UDGE