### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE
AT NASHVILL E

Nov em be r 18 , 20 09 Ses si on

ANTONI O L. FULLE R v. STAT E OF TENNE SSEE

D irect A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim in a l C o u rt f o r D a v id so n C o u n ty
N o . 2 0 0 1 -A -2 7 6 J . R a n d a ll W y a tt, J r., J u d g e

N o . M 2 0 0 8 -0 1 4 2 1 -C C A -R 3 -P C - F iled S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 1 0

P etitio n er, A n to n io L

. F u ller, ap p eals th e p o st- c o n v i c t io n co u rt’s d ism issal o f h is p etitio n f o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief in w h ich h e alleg ed th e in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f trial an d ap p ellate

co u n sel. S p ecif

ically

, P etitio n er co n ten d s th at trial co u n sel’s assistan ce w as in ef f ectiv e b ecau se h e f

ailed to (1 ) o b

j ect to th e trial co u rt’s in stru ctio n to th e j u ry co n cern in g th e lesser
in clu d ed o f

f en se o f ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g ; (2 ) o b j e c t to th e trial co u rt’s co n sid eratio n o f

P etitio n er’s p rio r co n v ictio n s in d eterm in in g h is sen ten cin g ran g e an d th e len g th o f h is

sen ten ce; an d (3 ) f

ailed to raise th ese issu es in th e m o tio n f o r n ew trial. P etitio n er co n ten d s th at ap p ellate co u n sel’s assistan ce w as in ef f ectiv e b ecau se h e f

ailed to raise th ese issu es o n
ap p eal. P etiti o n er also co n ten d s th at th e len g th o f h is sen ten ce v io lates th e p rin cip les set f o rth in B la kely v

. W

a sh in g to n , 5 4 2 U .S

. 2 9 6

, 1 2 4 S

. C t. 2 5 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ) an d ask s th is C o u rt

to g ran t h im a n ew sen ten cin g h earin g

. A f ter a th o ro u g h rev iew

, w e af f irm th e j u d g m en t o f
th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt.

T en n . R . A p p . P . A p p ea l a s o f R ig h t; J u d g m en t o f

th e C rim in a l C o u rt A f

f irm ed

T H O M A S T

. W O O D A L L , J., d eliv ered th e o p in io n o f th e C o u rt, in w h ich J E R R Y L

. S M IT H an d
C A M IL L E R

. M C M U L L E N , JJ., j o in ed

.

D av id A . C o llin s, N ash v ille, T en n essee, f o r th e ap p ellan t, A n to n io L . F u ller.

R o b ert E

. C o o p er, Jr., A tto rn ey G en eral an d R ep o rter; L acy Wilb er, A ssistan t A tto rn ey Ge n eral; V icto r S

. (T o rry ) Jo h n so n , III, D istrict A tto rn ey G en eral; Am y Ei s e nbe c k, As s i s t a

nt
D istrict A tto rn ey G en eral; L isa N ay lo r, A ssistan t D i s t r i c t At t or ney G en eral; an d D an H am m , A ssistan t D istrict A tto rn ey G en eral, f

o r th e ap p ellee, th e S tate o f T en n essee.O P IN IO N

I. B a ckg ro u n d

F o llo w in g a j u ry tria l

, P e t i t io n er an d h is co -d ef en d an t, M arcellu s B etty

, w ere

co n v icted o f tw o co u n ts o f esp eci a l l y ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g , an d o n e co u n t each o f

ag g rav ated b u rg lary

, ag g rav ated ro b b ery , ev ad in g arrest, an d reck less en d an g erm en t. T h e trial co u rt sen ten ced P e t i t i o n er as a R an g e II, m u ltip le o f f en d er, to ten y ears f

o r h is

aggr a va t e d burg lary co n v ictio n , eig h teen y ears f o r h is ag g rav ated ro b b ery co n v ictio n , th irty

f iv e y ears f o r each esp ecially ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g co n v ictio n , sev en y ears f o r h is ev ad in g
arrest co n v ictio n , an d f

o u r y ears f

o r h is reck less en d an g erm en t co n v ictio n

. T h e trial co u rt im p o sed a co m

b in atio n o f co n cu rren t an d co n secu tiv e sen ten ces f o r an ef f ectiv e sen ten ce

o f f if ty -six y ears.

T h e f acts su p p o rtin g P etitio n er’s co n v ictio n s w ere su m m arized b y o u r su p rem e co u rt as f o llo w s:

D u rin g th e early m o rn in g h o u rs o f D ecem b er 2 2

, 2 0 0 0

, th e d ef

en d an ts,
A n to n io F u ller an d M arcellu s B etty

, b ro k e in to th e G o o d lettsv ille to w n h o u se

o f G eo rg e Wo o d s , III, an d Q u an trissa S h errell Wo o d s. M r. Wo o d s w as sleep in g , an d M rs. Wo o d s w as n u rsin g th eir ten -d ay -o ld so n

. F u ller an d B etty

ran in t o th e b ed ro o m

. B etty ap p ro ach ed M rs. Wo o d s’ sid e o f th e b ed

, p o in tin g a rif

le at h er an d th e b ab y

. F u ller w alk ed to th e o th er sid e, aim in g a sh o tg u n at M r. Wo o d s. B etty d em an d ed

, “Wh ere’s th e d o p e? Wh ere’s t h e

m o n ey ? ” M rs. Wo o d s resp o n d ed

, “We d o n ’t h av e an y d ru g s o r m o n ey

. Y o u k n o w , w e j u st w o rk

. A ll th e m o n ey w e h av e i s u p o n th e d resser, ab o u t

sev en ty d o llars.” B etty th reaten ed to k ill th e co u p le if th ey d id n o t g iv e h im
d ru g s an d m o n ey

.

Wh en B etty ask ed w h ere “L ittle Jaso n ” w as, M r. Wo o d s realized th at th e m en h ad b ro k en in to th e w ro n g to w n h o u se. M r. Wo o d s to ld th em th at
L ittle Jaso n ’s co u sin liv ed in an o th er to w n h o u se in th e co m p lex an d d ro v e a

car sim ilar t o h i s

. B etty d em an d ed th at M r. Wo o d s sh o w th em th e co rrect

to w n h o u se. B etty to o k th e sev en ty d o llars f ro m th e d resser an d o rd ered F u ller

to b in d th e co u p le w ith d u ct tap e. M rs. Wo o d s’ m o u th w as co v ered

, an d h er

arm s w ere tap ed b eh in d h er. M r. Wo o d s’ arm s an d leg s w ere b o u n d

, an d h e

w as f o rced o u tsid e th e to w n h o u se. M r. Wo o d s estim ated th at f o rty m in u tes

p assed f ro m th e tim e t h e men en tered th e to w n h o u se u n til M r. Wo o d s lef t

w ith th em

.

-2-S o o n th ereaf ter, M rs. W o o d s’ f

iv e-y ear-o ld d au g h ter ran in to th e b ed ro o m

. B ecau se B etty h ad w ar n e d M rs. Wo o d s th at h e k n ew sh e h ad a ch ild in th e o th er ro o m , M rs. Wo o d s to ld h er d au g h ter, “Y o u h av e to g o b ack

to y o u r ro o m an d lay d o w n an d n o t say an y th in g , b ecau se, if th e y c a t c h y o u in h ere, th ey ’re g o in g to k ill u s, t h in k in g y o u ’v e called th e p o lice.” T h en ,
w ith h er arm s still b o u n d b eh in d h er, M rs. Wo o d s called 9 1 1 f ro m a p h o n e o n th e n ig h tstan d

. M rs. Wo o d s h u n g u p b ef o re h er call w as an sw ered

, h o w ev er, f earin g th at B etty o r F u ller w as still in th e to w n h o u se. Wh en th e 9 1 1
d isp a t c h er called b ack

, M rs. Wo o d s an sw ered an d q u ick ly ex p lain ed th e situ atio n

. M rs. Wo o d s w as ab le to co m m u n icate d esp ite th e d u ct tap e still

co v erin g h er mo u th b ecau se sh e h ad lick ed h er lip s b ef o re th e tap e w as
ap p lied

, th u s lo o sen in g it. A f ter h an g in g u p th e p h o n e, sh e g o t b ack in to th e b ed in th e sam e p o sitio n as th e m en h ad lef t h er.

A f ter M r. Wo o d s sh o w ed F u ller an d B etty w h ere L ittle Jaso n ’s co u sin
l i v ed

, th e th ree m en retu rn ed to th e Wo o d ses’ to w n h o u se. B etty to o k M r

. Wo o d s u p to th e b ed ro o m an d p laced h im in th e b e d w i t h h i s w if e, w h o

rem ain ed b o u n d

. B etty ag ain th reat e n e d th e co u p le, statin g , “I’ll k ill y o u if

y o u m ess m y stin g u p .” B etty rep eated th e th reats as h e w en t b ack an d f o rth
stick in g th e b arrel o f th e rif le in each v ictim ’s m o u th

. B e t ty o rd ered th e

co u p le to f

ace th e w all, an d th en h e f led

.

M r. an d M rs. Wo o d s w o rk ed to g eth er to rem o v e th e d u ct tap e f ro m each o th er. Wh en f

ree, th e co u p le p ack ed a b ag an d g ath ered th eir ch ild ren

. T h ey w ere ru n n in g to w ard th e d o o r w h en th e p o lice arriv ed

. U p o n seein g F u ller an d B etty d riv e o u t o f th e p ark in g lo t o f th e c o mp lex

, an o f f icer

attem p ted to p u ll th em o v er. B o th m en w ere ap p reh en d ed af ter a h ig h -sp eed
ch ase.

S ta te v. F u ller , 1 7 2 S .W.3 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 4 -5 3 6 (T en n . 2 0 0 5 ).

O n d irect ap p eal, th is C o u rt co n clu d ed th at P etitio n er’s co n v ictio n o f th e esp ecially

ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g o f M s. Wo o d s v io lated th e d u e p ro cess pr i n cip les an n o u n ced in S ta te

v

. A n th o n

y , 8 1 7 S .W.2 d 2 9 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 1 ) an d rev ersed an d d ism issed P etitio n e r ’ s

co n v ictio n f

o r th is o f f en se. T h e trial co u rt’s j u d g m en ts as to all o th er asp ects w ere af f irm ed

. B ecau se P etitio n er’s tw o sen ten ces f o r esp ecially ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g w ere o rd ered to b e

serv ed co n cu rren tly

, P etitio n er’s ef f ectiv e sen ten ce o f f

if ty -six y ears rem ain ed u n ch an g ed

. S ta te v. A n to n io F

u ller

, N o

. M 2 0 0 2 -0 2 3 7 7 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 4 WL 1 5 6 2 5 4 6

, at * 8 (T en n

. C rim . A p p ., at N ash v ille, Ju ly 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 ), rev’d . in p a rt b y F u ller , 1 7 2 S .W.3 d at 5 3 4

.

-3-T h e su p rem e co u rt d en ie d P e t i t io n er’s ap p licatio n f o r p erm issio n to ap p eal. T h e

co u rt, h o w ev er, g ran ted th e S tate’s ap p licatio n f o r p erm issio n to ap p eal to co n sid er w h eth er P etitio n er’s d u al co n v ictio n s f o r ag g rav ated ro b b ery an d th e esp ecially ag g rav ated
k id n ap p in g o f M s. Wo o d s v io lated d u e p ro cess p rin cip les. A f ter rev iew

, th e co u rt h eld th at th e sep arate co n v ictio n f o r th e e s p e c i a lly ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g o f M s. Wo o d s d id n o t

v io late d u e p ro cess u n d er A n th o n y an d its p ro g en y , an d rev ersed th e j u d g m en t o f th is C o u rt in s ofa r a s i t di s m i s s e d P etitio n er’s co n v ictio n o f th e esp ecially ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g o f M s. Wo o d s. F

u ller , 1 7 2 S .W.3 d at 5 3 8

.

II. P o st-C o n v ictio n H ea rin g

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at h e b eg an p racticin g law in 1 9 9 8

, an d h is p ractice in v o lv ed

p rim arily crim in al cases. T rial co u n sel b eliev ed th at th e S tate’s case ag ain st P etitio n er w as

v ery stro n g

. T rial co u n sel said th at h e d ev elo p ed a th eo ry o f d ef en se b ased o n th e

co n ten tio n th at P etitio n er w as o n ly alo n g f o r th e rid e o n th e n ig h t o f th e o f f en ses, an d th at
P etitio n er h im self w as scared o f M r. B etty

. T rial co u n s e l s t ated th at M r. an d M s. Wo o d s

w ere v ery articu late, an d th eir testim o n y at trial “w as p ain f u l to h ear.” T rial co u n sel said th at h e d id n o t b eliev e th e case co u ld b e settled an d p rep ared f o r trial. D u rin g th is p ro cess, trial

co u n sel stated th at h e rev iew ed th e S tate’s ev id en ce w ith P etitio n er an d d iscu ssed th e th eo ry

o f d ef en se. T rial co u n sel said th at P etitio n er w as released o n b o n d o n an u n related c a s e

w h en h e w as arrested o n th e ro b b ery an d k id n ap p in g ch arg e s , a n d

, th eref o re, f aced

co n secu tiv e sen ten cin g if h e p ro ceed ed to trial in b o th cases.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , trial co u n sel ack n o w led g ed th at th e ro b b ery an d k id n ap p in g

o f f en ses in case n o

. 2 0 0 1 -A -2 7 6 w ere co m m itted o n D ecem b er 2 2

, 2 0 0 0

. T rial co u n sel also

rep resen ted P etitio n er in case n o

. 2 0 0 0 -D -1 9 9 2 w h ich i nvol ve d d ru g an d co n sp iracy ch arg es

co mmi t t e d b ef

o re th e o f f en ses in case n o

. 2 0 0 1 -A -2 7 6

. T rial co u n sel said th at P etitio n er

en tered p leas o f g u ilty in th is case o n D ecem b er 3

, 2 0 0 1

. T rial co u n sel stated th at it w as h is

u n d erstan d in g th at th ese co n v ictio n s co u ld n o t b e u sed to estab lish P etitio n er’s sen ten cin g

ran g e, an d th at P etitio n er w as sen ten ced as a R an g e II, m u ltip le o f f en d er b ased o n tw o 1 9 9 4
f elo n y co n v ictio n s. T rial co u n sel ack n o w led g ed t h a t h e d id n o t o b j ect to th e trial co u rt’s

co n sid eratio n o f th e co n v ictio n s in case n o

. 2 0 0 0 -D -1 9 9 2 as an en h an cem en t f acto r in
d eterm in in g th e len g th o f P etitio n er’s sen ten ces, an d th at h e d id n o t raise th ese sen ten cin g issu es in h is m o tio n f

o r n ew trial. T rial co u n sel also ack n o w led g ed th at h e d id n o t o b j ect

to th e trial co u rt’s in stru ctio n s to th e j u ry o n th e lesser in clu d ed o f f en s e o f ag g rav ated
k id n ap p in g . A p p ellate co u n sel d id n o t testif y at th e p o st-co n v ictio n h earin g

.

-4-III. S ta n d a rd o f R ev iew

T o su cceed o n a ch allen g e o f in ef f ectiv e assist an ce o f co u n sel, th e p etitio n er b ears th e b u rd en o f estab lish in g th e a l leg atio n s set f o rth in h is p etitio n b y clear an d co n v in cin g

ev id en ce. T .C .A

. § 4 0 -3 0 -2 1 0 (f ). H o w ev er, th e trial co u rt’s ap p licatio n o f th e law to th e f acts is rev iew ed d

e n o vo
, w ith o u t a p resu m

p tio n o f co rrectn ess. F

ield s v. S ta te, 4 0 S .W.3 d
4 5 0

, 4 5 8 (T en n

. 2 0 0 1 ). A claim th at co u n sel ren d ered in ef f ectiv e assi s t a n c e i s a m ix ed

q u estio n o f

f act an d law an d th eref

o re also su b

j ect to d e n o vo rev iew

. Id

. ; S ta te v. B u rn s, 6 S .W.3 d 4 5 3 , 4 6 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ).

Wh en a p etitio n er seek s p o st-co n v ictio n relief o n th e b asis o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce

o f co u n sel, h e o r sh e m

u st estab lish th at co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce f

ell b e l o w “ t h e ran g e o f

co m p eten ce d em an d ed o f atto rn ey s in crim in al cases.” B a xter v. R o se , 5 2 3 S .W.2 d 9 3 0

, 9 3 6 (T en n

. 1 9 7 5 ). In ad d itio n , h e o r sh e m u st s h o w th at co u n sel’s in ef f ectiv e p erf

o rm an ce
actu ally ad v ersely im

p acted h is d ef

en se. S trickla n d v. Wa sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S

. 6 6 8

, 6 9 3

, 1 0 4
S

. C t. 2 0 5 2

, 2 0 6 7 (1 9 8 4 ). In rev iew in g co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce, th e d isto rtio n s o f h in d sig h t

m u st b e av o id ed

, an d th is C o u rt w ill n o t seco n d -g u ess co u n s e l ’s d ecisio n s reg ard in g trial strateg ies an d tactics. H

ella rd v. S ta te
, 6 2 9 S .W.2 d 4

, 9 (T en n

. 1 9 8 2 ). T h e rev iew in g co u rt, th eref o re, sh o u ld n o t co n clu d e th at a p articu lar act o r o m issio n b y co u n sel is u n reaso n ab le merely b ecau se th e strateg y w as u n su ccessf u l. S trickla n d

, 4 6 6 U .S

. at 6 8 9

, 1 0 4 S

. C t. a t
2 0 6 5

. R ath er, co u n sel’s alleg ed erro rs sh o u ld b e j u d g ed f ro m co u n sel’s p ersp ectiv e at th e
p o in t o f tim e th ey w ere m ad e in lig h t o f

all th e f acts an d circu m stan ces at th at tim e. Id . at 6 9 0 , 1 0 4 S . C t. at 2 0 6 6

.

A p e t i t i o n er m

u st satisf y b o th p ro n g s o f th e S trickla n d test b ef o re h e o r sh e m ay
p rev ail o n a claim o f in ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel. S ee H en ley v. S ta te, 9 6 0 S .W.2 d 5 7 2

, 5 8 0 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ). T h at is, a p etitio n er mu s t n o t o n ly sh o w th at h is o r h er co u n sel’s

p erf o rm an ce f

ell b elo w accep tab le stan d ard s, b u t th at su ch p erf o rm an ce w as p rej u d icial to th e p etitio n er. Id

. F ailu re to satisf y eith er p ro n g w ill resu lt in th e d en ial o f reli e f

. Id

. A cco rd in g ly

, th is C o u rt n eed n o t a d d r ess o n e o f th e co m p o n en ts if th e p etitio n er f ails to estab lish th e o th er. S trickla n d

, 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. at 2 0 6 9

.

IV. J u ry In stru ctio n s

P etitio n er w as ch arg ed in co u n t th ree o f th e in d ictm en t f o r th e esp ecially ag g rav ated
k id n ap p in g o f G eo rg e Wo o d s, III acco m p lish ed w ith a d ead ly w eap o n , an d in co u n t f o u r f o r th e esp e c i a lly ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g o f Q u an trissa S h errell [ n o w Q u an trissa Wo o d s]

acco m p lish ed w ith a d ead ly w eap o n

. T .C .A

. § 3 9 -1 3 -3 0 5 (a)(1 ). T h e trial co u rt in stru cted
th e j u ry o n th e lesser in clu d ed o f f en ses o f f acilitatio n o f esp ecially ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g

acco m p lish ed b y m ean s o f a d ead ly w eap o n , ag g rav ated k i d n ap p in g co m m itted w h ile

-5-P etitio n er w as in p o ssessio n o f a d ead ly w eap o n , an d f acilitatio n o f ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g

w h ile in p o ssessio n o f

a d ead ly w eap o n

.

A g g rav ated k id n ap p in g is d ef in ed as a f alse im p riso n m en t w h ich m ay b e co m m itted
in o n e o f f

iv e w ay s: “(1 ) [ t] o f

acilitate th e co m m issio n o f an y f elo n y o r f lig h t th ereaf

ter; (2 ) [ t] o in terf ere w ith th e p erf

o rm an ce o f an y g o v ern m en tal o r p o litical f u n ctio n ; (3 ) [ w ] ith th e in ten t to in f

lict serio u s b o d ily in

j u ry o n o r to terro rize th e v ictim o r an o th er; (4 ) [ w ] h ere th e

v ictim su f f ers b o d ily in

j u ry ; o r (5 ) [ w ] h ile th e d ef en d an t is in p o ssessio n o f a d ead ly w eap o n

o r th reaten s th e u se o f a d ead ly w eap o n

. T .C .A

. § 3 9 -1 3 -3 0 4 (a). P etitio n er arg u es th at trial

co u n sel’s assistan ce w as in ef f ectiv e b ecau se h e f

ailed to req u est th e trial co u rt to in stru ct th e j u ry o n th e f

irst m eth o d o f co mmittin g ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g , th at is, to f acilitate th e

co m m issio n o f a f

elo n y , as a lesser in clu d ed o f f en se o f esp ecially ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g

. S ee id

. § 3 9 -1 3 -3 0 4 (a)(1 ). P etitio n er co n ten d s th at th e ev id en ce p resen ted at trial su p p o rted
th e p ro v isio n o f th is in stru ctio n

. P etitio n er su b m its t h a t h ad th e j u ry b een ex ten d ed th is

o p tio n , “th ey m ig h t h av e v ery w ell d eterm in ed th at h e w as g u ilty o f ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g in stead o f esp ecially ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g ” b ecau se P etitio n er’s k id n ap pi ng off en ses w ere in cid en t a l to th e co m m issio n o f th e f elo n y ro b b ery o f

f en se. P etitio n er also arg u es th at

ap p ellate co u n sel’s assistan ce w as in ef f ectiv e b ecau se h e f

ailed to raise th e issu e o n ap p eal

as p lain erro r.

B ased o n o u r rev iew

, w e co n clu d e th at ev en if trial co u n s e l s h o u l d h av e req u ested

an in stru ctio n o n ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g to f acilitate th e co m m issio n o f a f elo n y , P etitio n er h as f ailed to estab lish th at h e w as p rej u d iced b y th e o m issio n

. A ssu m in g a rg u en d o th at

ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g to f acilitate th e co m m issio n o f a f elo n y is a lesser in clu d ed o f f en se

o f esp ecially ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g acco m p lish ed w ith th e u se o f a d ead ly w e a p o n , th is
d o es n o t m ean th at an in stru ctio n w as n ecessarily cal led f o r u n d er th e seco n d p art o f th e B u rn s test. S ta te v

. F

o w ler

, 2 3 S .W.3 d 2 8 5

, 2 8 9 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ) (citin g B u rn s 6 S .W.3 d at
4 6 9 ). A n in stru ctio n as to a lesser in clu d ed o f f en se is o n ly req u ired if th e ev id en ce at trial

su p p o rts th e lesser in clu d ed o f f en se an d th e trial co u rt d eterm in es th at th e ev id en ce is leg ally

su f f icien t to su p p o rt a co n v ictio n o f th e lesser in clu d ed o f f en se. F o w ler

, 2 3 S .W.3 d at 2 8 9

. In u p h o ld in g d u al co n v ictio n s f o r ag g rav ated ro b b ery an d th e esp ecially ag g rav ated
k id n ap p in g o f M s. Wo o d s, o u r su p rem e co u rt f o u n d th at P etitio n er d id n o t b in d M s. Wo o d s

w ith d u ct tap e f

o r th e so le p u rp o se o f f

acilitatin g th e ro b b ery o r h is escap e, n o tin g th at th e

ev id en ce clearly sh o w ed th at th e m o n ey w as tak en f ro m th e b ed ro o m d resser p rio r to h er

co n f in em en t. F

u ller , 1 7 2 S .W.3 d at 5 3 7

.

M o reo v er, th e trial co u rt in stru cted th e j u ry th at f acilitatio n o f esp ecially ag g rav ated
k id n ap p in g , ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g w h ile in th e p o ssessio n o f a d ead ly w eap o n , an d
f acilitatio n o f ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g w h ile in th e p o ssessio n o f a d ead ly w eap o n w ere lesser
in clu d ed o f

f en ses o f esp ecially ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g

. B y f in d in g P etitio n er g u ilty o f th e

-6-g reater o f

f en se, th e j u ry n ecessarily rej ec t e d all o th er lesser o f f en ses an d clearly
d em o n strates th at it w o u ld n o t h av e retu rn ed a v erd ict o n ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g to f acilitate
th e co m m issio n o f a f

elo n y

. S ee S ta te v. Willia m s , 9 7 7 S .W.2 d 1 0 1

, 1 0 7 (T en n

. 1 9 9 8 ). We

co n clu d e th at P etitio n er h as f ailed to d em o n strate a reaso n ab le p ro b ab ility th at th e o u tco m e

o f th e p ro ceed in g s w o u ld h av e b een d if f eren t h ad th e j u ry b een in stru cted o n a g g r a v ated
k id n ap p in g to f

acilitate th e co m m issio n o f a f elo n y o r h ad ap p ellate co u n sel so u g h t “p lain

erro r” rev iew o f

th e issu e o n ap p eal. P etitio n er is n o t en titled to relief o n th is issu e.

V. S en ten cin g Issu es

R ely in g o n S ta te v. B lo u vett
, 9 0 4 S .W.2 d 1 1 1 (T en n

. 1 9 9 5 ), P etitio n er ar g u e s t h at trial co u n sel’s assistan ce w as in ef f ectiv e b ecau se h e f

ailed to o b

j ect t o t h e t r i a l co u rt’s

co n sid eratio n o f h is p rio r co n v ictio n s f o r o f f en ses w h ich o ccu rred af

ter th e ch arg ed o f

f en ses in d eterm in in g h is sen ten cin g ran g e an d th e len g th o f h is sen ten ce. P etitio n er also co n ten d s th at ap p ellate co u n sel’s assistan ce w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to raise th e issu e o n ap p eal as
p lain erro r.

P etitio n er co m m itted th e o f f en ses w h ich are th e su b

j ect o f th is ap p eal o n D ecem b er 2 2

, 2 0 0 0

. O n D ecem

b er 1

, 2 0 0 1

, P etitio n er en tered p leas o f g u ilty in case n o

. 2 0 0 0 -D -1 9 9 2

to o n e co u n t o f th e sale o f less th an .5 g ram s o f h y d ro m o rp h o n e, also k n o w n as D ilau d id

, a C lass C f

elo n y ; tw o co u n ts o f th e sale o f m o re th an .5 g ram s o f h y d ro m o rp h o n e, a C lass

B f elo n y ; an d o n e co u n t o f co n sp iracy to sell f if ty g ram s o r m o re o f h y d ro m o rp h o n e, a C lass
A f elo n y

. T h e o f

f en ses in case n o

. 2 0 0 0 -D -1 9 9 2 w ere co m m itted in Jan u ary an d F eb ru ary 2 0 0 0

.

In B lo u vett
, o u r su p rem e co u rt h eld t h a t a “p rio r co n v ictio n ” f o r p u rp o ses o f
d eterm in in g a d ef

en d an t’s sen ten cin g ran g e is a “co n v ictio n th at h as b een ad j u d icated p rio r
to th e co m m issio n o f th e m o re recen t o f f en se f o r w h ich sen ten ce is to b e im p o sed .” B lo u vett
, 9 0 4 S .W.2 d at 1 1 3 ; see a lso T

. C

. A

. § 4 0 -3 5 -1 0 6 ((b )(1 ). In th is case, as P etitio n er p o in ts

o u t, h is f o u r co n v ictio n s in case n o

. 2 0 0 0 -D -1 992 we r e n o t “p rio r co n v ictio n s” u n d er sectio n 4 0 -3 5 -1 0 6 (b )(1 ) b ecau se th ey d id n o t b eco m e f in al u n til af

ter h e co m m itted th e o f

f en ses in
th e case su b ju d ice

. H o w ev er, th e trial co u rt d id n o t rely o n th ese f o u r co n v i c t i o n s to d eterm in e P etitio n er’s sen ten cin g ran g e.

In 1 9 9 4

, P etitio n er w as co n v icted in case n o

. 9 4 -C -1 4 7 2 o f p o ssessio n o f m o re th an 2 6 g ram s o f

co cain e w ith th e in ten t to sell, a C lass B f elo n y , an d in case n o

. 9 4 -C -1 4 8 6 o f

p o ssessio n o f a S ch ed u l e I I c o n t r o l led su b stan ce w ith th e in ten t to sell, a C lass C f elo n y

. T h e reco rd clearly ref

lects th at th e trial co u rt relied o n D ef en d an t’s tw o 1 9 9 4 f

elo n y

co n v ictio n s an d n o t th e f

o u r co n v ictio n s in case n o

. 2 0 0 0 -D -1 9 9 2 in d eterm in in g th at h e w as

a R an g e II, m

u ltip le o f f en d er, f o r sen ten cin g p u rp o ses. S ee T .C .A

. § 4 0 -3 5 -1 0 6 (a)(1 )

-7-(p ro v id in g th at “a ‘m u ltip le o f f en d er’ is a d ef

en d an t w h o h as receiv ed

. . . [ a] m in im u m o f

tw o p rio r f

elo n y co n v ictio n s w ith in th e co n v ictio n class, a h ig h er class, o r w ith in th e n ex t

tw o (2 ) lo w er f

elo n y classes”). T h u s, P etitio n er h as f ailed to d em o n strate an y p rej u d ice o r d ef icien t co n d u ct o n th e p art o f eith er h is trial co u n sel o r h is ap p ellate co u n sel.

P etitio n er also arg u es, h o w ev er, th at th e sam e d ef in itio n o f a “p rio r co n v ictio n ” set f o rth in B lo u vett sh o u ld b e u sed f o r en h an cem en t p u rp o ses, th at is, h is sen ten ce sh o u ld o n ly
b e en h an ced f

o r c onvi c t i o n s p rio r to h is co m m issio n o f th e cu rren t o f f en ses. T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated sectio n 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 4 (1 ) p ro v id es th at a d ef en d an t’s sen ten ce m ay

b e en h an ced if
“th e d ef en d an t h as a p rev io u s h isto ry o f crim in al co n v ictio n s o r crim in al b e h a v i o r in
ad d itio n to th o se n ecessary to estab lish th e ap p ro p riate ran g e.” “T h is C o u rt h as p rev io u sly
stated th at a trial co u rt ‘can co n sid er crim in al co n v ictio n s o r an y o th e r c r im in al b eh av io r

w h ich o ccu rred p rio r to th e sen ten cin g h earin g as b ein g “ a p rev io u s h isto ry o f crim in al

co n v ictio n s o r crim in al b eh av io r” u n d er T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated [ sectio n ] 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 4 (1 )

reg ard less o f w h eth er th e co n v ictio n s o r crim in al b e h a v i o r o ccu rred b ef o re o r af ter th e crimi n a l co n d u ct u n d er co n sid eratio n .’” S ta te v. Jo rd a n , 1 1 6 S .W.3 d 8

, 2 4 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 2 0 0 3 ) (q u o tin g S ta te v. E d W a t e rs , N o

. 0 1 -C -0 1 -9 1 0 6 -C R -0 0 1 5 8

, 1 9 9 2 WL 2 8 4 5 7

, at * 3 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p ., at N ash v ille, F eb

. 2 0

, 1 9 9 2 ), p erm

. to a p p ea l d en ied (T en n

. Ju n e 2 2

, 1 9 9 2 )); S ta te v. K

evin M cD o u g le

, N o

. W2 0 0 7 -0 2 3 4 4 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 1 0 WL 4 5 5 0 0 4

, at * 8 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p ., at Jack so n , F eb

. 1 0

, 2 0 1 0 ), n o p erm

. to a p p ea l filed ; S t a t e v. B ra n d o n S h a w n Jo n es , N o

. E 2 0 0 3 -0 2 0 5 0 -C C A -R 3 -C D , 2 0 0 4 WL 1 0 7 3 8 1 0 , at * 2 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p ., at K n o x v ille, M ay 1 3

, 2 0 0 4 ), n o p e r m

. t o a p p ea l filed ; see a lso S ta te v. D ellin g er, 7 9 S .W.3 d 4 5 8 , 5 0 6 n .4 (T en n . 2 0 0 2 ) (“T h e h o ld in g in B lo u vett

... is lim ited to th e sp ecif ic stat u tes ref

eren ced in th at o p in io n f o r sen ten cin g f

elo n y o f f en d ers u n d er th e T e n n e ssee C rim in al S en ten cin g R ef o rm A ct o f 1 9 8 9 .”); R icky G

. A a ro n v. S ta te, N o

. M 2 0 0 6 -0 1 9 8 3 -C C A -R 3 -P C

, 2 0 0 8 WL 2 0 3 3 9 4

, at * 1 2 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p ., at N ash v ille, Jan

. 2 2

, 2 0 0 8 ), p erm

. to a

p p ea l d en ied (T en n

. Ju n e 2 3

, 2 0 0 8 ) (“If [ th e leg islatu re] h ad in ten d ed

to restrict th e u se o f p rio r co n v ictio n s as en h an cem en t f acto rs to th o se ‘o ccu rrin g p rio r to th e

co m m issio n o f th e o f

f en se f o r w h ich th e d ef

en d an t is b ein g sen ten ced ,’ th e leg islatu re co u ld
sim p ly h av e u sed th e w o rd s ‘p rio r co n v ictio n .’ T h e u se o f d if f eren t lan g u ag e su g g ests th at a d if f eren t co n stru ctio n is ap p ro p riate.”).

P etitio n er w as co n v icted o f th e f o u r o f f en ses in case n o

. 2 0 0 0 -D -1 9 9 2 o n D ecem b er 3

, 2 0 0 1

, p rio r to h is sen ten cin g h earin g o n M ay 2 9 , 2 0 0 2

, an d th eref

o re th ese co n v ictio n s

w ere p ro p erly co n sid ered b y th e trial co u rt in d eterm in in g th e len g th o f h is sen ten ces. B ased

o n th e f o reg o in g , w e c o n clu d e th at P etitio n er h as f ailed to estab lish an y p rej u d ice o r d ef icien t co n d u ct o n th e p art o f h is trial co u n sel o r ap p ellate co u n sel.

We o b serv e th at P etitio n er arg u es f o r th e f irst tim e o n ap p eal th at trial co u n sel an d

ap p ellate co u n sel p ro v id ed in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel w h en th ey f ailed to raise as an

-8-issu e at trial o r o n ap p eal th e trial co u rt’s f ailu re to co n sid er th e m itig atin g f acto r p ro v id ed
in T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated sectio n 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 3 (b )(2 ). F actu al issu es n o t p resen ted to th e
p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt m ay n o t b e raised f o r th e f irst tim e o n ap p eal. T en n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 6 (a);

B u tler v. S ta te
, 7 8 9 S .W.2 d 8 9 8

, 9 0 2 (T en n

. 1 9 9 0 ). N o n eth eless, th is issu e w as raised an d
ad d ressed o n d irect ap p eal o n h is co n v ictio n s. S ee T .C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 0 -1 0 6 (f ) (p ro v id in g f

o r d ism issal o f a p o st-co n v ictio n p et i t i o n i f th e claim f o r relief h as b een p rev io u sly
d eterm in ed ). S ectio n 4 0 -3 5 -1 1 3 (b )(2 ) p ro v id es th at “[ i] f th e o f f en d er v o lu n tarily

releases
th e v ictim aliv e o r v o lu n tarily p ro v id es in f o rm atio n lead in g to th e v ictim ’s saf e release, su ch
actio n s sh all b e co n sid ered b y th e co u rt as a m itig atin g f acto r at th e tim e o f sen ten cin g .” O n
ap p eal, w e co n clu d ed th at “[ i] n th is case, h o w ev er, th e d ef en d an ts d id n o t release th e v ictim s b u t a c tu ally lef

t th em in th eir ap artm en t b o u n d w ith d u ct tap e. Wh ile th ey ev en tu ally

escap ed

, th is is n o t th e eq u iv alen t o f a v o lu n tary release.” A n to n io F u ller

, 2 0 0 4 WL
1 5 6 2 5 4 6 , at * 1 3 (citatio n s o m itted ). P etitio n er is n o t en titled to relief o n th is issu e.

VI. B la k ely

Issu es

P etitio n er arg u es th at th is C o u rt’s d ecisio n o n ap p eal af f irm in g th e le n g t h o f h is

sen ten ces w as “o b

j ectiv ely u n reaso n ab le” an d co n trary to th e p rin cip les an n o u n ced in

B la kely v. Wa sh in g to n , 5 4 2 U .S

. 2 9 6

, 1 2 4 S

. C t. 2 5 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ) an d A p p ren d i v. N

ew Jersey

, 5 3 0 U

. S

. 4 6 6

, 1 2 0 S

. C t. 2 3 4 8 (2 0 0 0 ). P etitio n er su b m its th at b ecau se th is C o u rt d id n o t

p ro p erly co n sid er B la kely v. Wa sh in g to n in rev iew in g h is sen ten ces, h e is en titled to a n ew

sen ten cin g h earin g

.

In su p p o rt o f h is p o sitio n , P etitio n cites th e U n ited S tates S u p rem e C o u rt’s d ecisio n in Willia m s v. T

a ylo r , 5 2 9 U .S

. 3 6 2

, 1 2 0 S

. C t. 1 4 9 5 (2 0 0 0 ). T h is case, h o w ev er, ex am in es th e lim its p laced o n th e p o w er o f a f ed eral h ab eas co u rt to g ran t a state p riso n er’s ap p licatio n f o r a w rit o f h ab eas co rp u s b y sectio n 2 2 5 4 o f th e A n titerro rism an d E f f ectiv e D eath P en alty
A ct, an d is clearly

in ap p o site to th e case at b ar.

P etitio n er also cites S ta te v. A b el T o rres , N o

. M 2 0 0 4 -0 0 5 5 9 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 5 WL
2 9 2 4 3 1 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p ., at N ash v ille, F eb ru ary 4

, 2 0 0 5 ), n o p erm

. to a p p ea l filed

, arg u in g th at th e “law o f

th e case” d o ctrin e d o es n o t p reclu d e a seco n d rev iew b ecau se th e issu an ce o f th e B la kely d ecisio n ren d ers th is C o u rt’s p rio r d ecisio n “co n trary to a ch an g e in
th e co n tro llin g law .” G en erally

, “th e law o f t h e case d o ctrin e” p ro h ib its a co u rt f ro m

r e c o n s i d e r i n g issu es w h ich h av e b een d ecid ed in a p rio r ap p eal o f th e sam e case an d are raised ag ain in a d irect ap p eal af ter rem an d

. S ta te v. Jeffers o n , 3 1 S .W.3 d 5 5 8

, 5 6 0 -6 1 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e l im ited circu m stan ces w h ich m ay p erm it reco n sid eratio n o f issu es d ecid ed in a p rio r ap p eal in clu d e, as relev an t h ere, th at “th e p rio r d ecisio n is co n trary to a ch an g e in th e co n tro llin g law w h ich h as o ccu rred b etw een th e f irst an d seco n d ap p eal.” Id

.

-9-(q u o tin g M em p h is P u b l’g C o

. V

. T en n essee P etro leu m U

n d erg ro u n d S to ra g e T

a n k B d

. , 9 7 5
S .W.2 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 (T en n . 1 9 9 8 ).

In A b el T o rres , th e d ef

en d an t’s co n v ictio n s w ere af f irm ed o n ap p eal, b u t th e case w as

rem an d ed so lely f

o r a d eterm in atio n o f th e trial co u rt’s reaso n s f o r im p o sin g co n secu tiv e

sen ten cin g

. T h e trial co u rt ag ain im p o sed co n secu tiv e sen ten cin g , an d th e d ef en d an t

ap p ealed

. T h e B la kely d ecisio n w as issu ed af ter th e d ef en d an t’s f irst d irect ap p eal an d w h ile
h is case w as p en d in g o n ap p eal f o llo w in g rem an d

. We co n clu d ed th a t b ecau se th e d ef en d an t’s c a s e w as still o n d irect ap p eal, h is B la kely arg u m en t w as p ro p erly b ef o re th e

co u rt. Id

. 2 0 0 5 WL 2 9 2 4 3 1 , at * 5 (citin g S ch riro v. S

u m m erlin

, 5 4 2 U .S . 3 4 8 , 3 5 1 , 1 2 4 S

. C t. 2 5 1 9 , 2 5 2 2 (2 0 0 4 ) (h o ld in g th at S u p rem e C o u rt d ecisio n s w h ich resu lt in a “n ew ru le”

ap p ly “to all crim in al cases still p en d in g o n d irect rev iew ”)). F u rth er, w e co n clu d ed th at th e law o f th e case d o ctrin e d id n o t p reclu d e rev iew b ecau se B la kely rep resen ted a ch an g e in th e

co n tro llin g law w h ich h as o ccu rred b etw een th e f irst an d seco n d ap p eal. A b el T o rres , 2 0 0 5
WL 2 9 2 4 3 1 , at * 8

.

A b el T o rres , h o w ev er, d o es n o t su p p o rt P etitio n er’s arg u m en t. P etitio n e r ’s d irect

ap p eal is co m

p leted

, an d th e rem ed ies h e n o w seek s are g o v ern ed b y th e P o st-C o n v ictio n P ro ced u re A ct. T h e P o st-C o n v ictio n P ro ced u re A ct allo w s a p etitio n er to co llaterally attack
h is o r h er co n v ictio n o r sen ten ce o n co n stitu tio n al g ro u n d s as v o id o r v o id ab le i f s u ch

g ro u n d s h av e n o t b een w aiv ed o r p rev io u sly d e t e r mi n e d

. T .C .A

. § § 4 0 -3 0 -1 0 3

, -1 0 6

. “P etitio n s f

o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief ‘can n o t b e u sed as su b stitu tes f o r d irect ap p eals, o r to test th e su f f icien cy o f th e co n v ictin g ev id en ce, o r to relitig ate m atters o f f act alread y p u t to rest

u p o n th e trial.’” L e T

o n io S w a d er v. S ta te
, N o

. M 2 0 0 8 -0 1 0 2 1

- C C A

- R 3 -P C

, 2 0 0 9 WL
3 1 9 9 5 3 7

, at * 2 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p ., at N ash v ille, O ct. 7

, 2 0 0 9 ), p erm

. to a p p e a l d en ied (T en n

. M ar. 1 5

, 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o tin g S lo a n v. S ta te, 4 7 7 S .W.2 d 2 1 9

, 2 2 0 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 7 7 )).

T h is C o u rt ad d r e s s e d t h e im p act o f B la kely o n th e trial co u rt’s d eterm in atio n o f th e len g th o f P et itio n er’s sen ten ces o n d irect ap p eal b ecau se B la kely w as issu ed w h ile

P etitio n er’s d irect ap p eal w as still p en d in g

. A n to n io F u ller

, 2 0 0 4 WL 1 5 6 2 5 4 6

, * 1 6 n .2

. We

co n clu d ed th at:

“[ i] n an y ev en t, th e ap p licatio n o f en h an cem en t f acto rs (1 ) an d (1 3 ) w o u ld n o t v io late
th e ru le estab lish ed in A p p ren d i b e c a u s e f

acto r (2 ) is b ased u p o n p rio r crim in al

co n v ictio n s an d f

acto r (1 3 ) [ th e f

elo n ies w ere co m m itted w h ile P etitio n er w as o n b ail]

w as ad m itted b y each d ef en d an t in th is case. S

ee A p p r e n d i

, 5 6 6 U .S

. at 4 9 0

. M o reo v er, n eith er d ef

en d an t h as co n tested o n ap p eal th e ap p licatio n o f en h an cem en t f acto r (1 6 ) [ th e crim es w ere co m m itted u n d er circu m stan ces u n d er w h ich th e p o ten tial

-10-f

o r b o d ily in

j u ry to a v ictim w as g reat]

. In co n seq u en ce, it rem ain s o u r v iew th at th e

sen ten ces im

p o sed b y th e trial co u rt w ere w arran ted u n d er th e circu m stan ces.

Id

.

T h e th ru st o f P etitio n er’s arg u m en t is th at h e sim p ly d isag rees w ith o u r d ecisio n

. H e in sists th at h e d id n o t a d mi t t h at h e w as o n b ail, an d h e su b m its th at v ario u s p an els o f th is
C o u rt h av e rev iew ed an en h an cem en t f acto r f o r B la kely v io latio n s ev en w h en th e d ef en d an t d id n o t ch allen g e th e en h an cem en t f acto r o n ap p eal. N o n eth eless, th is issu e h as b een ad d ressed f

u lly o n d irect ap p eal an d is n o t su b j ect to f u rth er rev iew as co n temp l a t e d b y P etitio n er th ro u g h a p o st-co n v iction pr oc e e di ng. Ant oni o Har r i s v

. Sta te
, N o

. W2 0 0 6 -0 0 1 7 5

- C C A -R 3 -P C

, 2 0 0 7 WL 3 4 8 2 1

, at * 6 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p ., at Jack so n , Jan

. 4

, 2 0 0 7 ), n o p erm

. to a p p ea l filed ; M

a rlo n F itzg era ld v. S ta te
, N o

. W2 0 0 6 -0 1 6 0 3 -C C A -R 3 -P C

, 2 0 0 7 WL
3 0 5 0 9 7 4

, at * 1 1 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p ., at Jack so n , O ct. 1 9

, 2 0 0 7 ), p erm

. to a p p ea l d e n ied (T en n . A p r. 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 ). P etitio n er is n o t en titled to relief o n th is issu e.

C O N C L U S IO N

A f ter a th o ro u g h rev iew , w e af f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T H O M A S T . WO O D A L L , JU D G E

-11-