1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

AN DR E N EELY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. P -27142 Joseph B. Dailey, Jud ge

No. W2006-00601-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled Fe bruary 16, 2007

Th e Pe tit i o n e r , A n d r e N e e l y , ap p e a l s t h e l o w e r c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f

h i s p e t i t i o n f

o r p os tconviction re lief. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting th at t h i s Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. After a re view of the pleading s, the low e r c ou rt ’s or de r a ndthe app lic able la w, thi s Co urt con clu des that th e low e r c ou rt pr op e rl y determined that the Petitioner’s cla ims were w aived a nd proper ly dismiss ed the pe tition. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the c ourt’s dismissal.

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 G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS AND A L AN E. G L EN N , J J . joined.

B re tt B . St e in, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the Ap pe llant.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., At torne y

Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; J. Ros s D y e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

A Shelby Countyjury

convicted the Petitioner of one count of second de g ree murder a nd two counts of attempted se cond deg ree murder. For these offe nses, the trial c ourt imposed an ef fec tive
sentenc e of twenty

y ear s confineme nt in the Tennesse e De partment of Corr ection. On dire ct appe al to this C ourt, the Petitioner cha lleng ed his convic t i o n s o n t h e basis that (1) he was de nied an
op po rtun ity

to r e vie w the pr e lim ina

ry he ari ng tape a nd(2 ) the tr ia l c ou rt re fu se d to a dmi t c e rt a in2

testimonyto cure this deficienc y

. After revie w, this Court found that neither c laim warr anted r elief and af firmed the Petitioner’ s convictions and sente nces. Se e Sta te v . A nd re Ne e ly
, No . W2000- 01690-CCA-R3-CD (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, A pr. 26, 2002).

On Fe bruary

27, 2003, the Petitioner filed, pro se, a petiti on for post-c onviction relief. T he post-conviction court appointed counsel on Marc h 10, 2003. Substi tute counsel was appointed on Aug ust 5, 2004. An amende d p et i t i o n fo r post -convic tion relief wa s filed on Novembe r 9, 2004. The a mended pe tition raised the g rounds that the Petitioner’s due proc ess rig hts were violated in that the tr ia l c ou rt

fa ile d to ins truc t th e jury that a n a dv e rs e inf

e re nc e c ou ld b e dr a wn a g a ins t th e Sta te if the State has inadve rtently , neg lige ntly , or intentionally destroy ed critical evidenc e; the trial c ourt fa ile d to ins truc t the jury a s to the la w co nc e rn ing mis sin g wi tne sse s; the tr ia l c ou rt fa ile d to pr op e rl y instruct the jury

as to how the jury

should rece ive and we igh the testi m o n y o f t he per son who has b e e n d e c l ar e d a

h o s t i l e w i t n e s s ; th e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o i n s t ru c t t h e j u r y a s t o c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y; the tr ia l c ou rt

fa ile d to a llo w the Pe tit ion e r’ s inve sti g a tor to imp e a c h one of the Sta te ’s ma in w itn e ss as to a prior inconsistent sta tement; and the sentenc e imposed by the trial court violated Bl ake ly v. W ashington

.

On Marc h 16, 2006, the post-conviction court denied re lief. I n its order, the lowe r court made the f

ollowing f

indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law :

Wit h reg ard to the alleg ed Bl ake ly vio la tio n, the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court has clea

rly s t ated that the Bl ake ly case is not to be applied

re tr oa c tiv e ly

a ndthe re fo re that iss ue is wi tho ut m e ri t. Wi th r e g ardto the re ma ini ng iss ue s th a t r e la te to jury ins truc tio ns , af te r a c omp le te and thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d and the a rg uments pres en t ed by this petiti oner an d his counsel, it is thi s Court’s opinion that all of thos e c o n c e r n s r e lati n g to ap p r o p r iate ju r y in s tr u c ti o n s s h o u ldh a ve be e n r a ise d, if

a t a ll, by tr ia l cou ns e l a nd /or a pp e llate c ou ns e l a ndif they wer e not pre viouslylitigated the n they have no w bee n waived. Additionally
, i n the ca se of a t least sever al of the a bove-me ntioned jury instructions there may

well have been sound ta ctical r easons from a de fense standpoint for not having reque ste d them at trial which should not now be sec ond g uessed. I t is thi s Court’s opinion that none of the matters ra ised by this pe titioner rise to the level of a du e pr oc e ss v iol a tio n n e c e ssi ta tin g the g ra nti ng of a ne w t ri a l.

This appea l followed. The only g rounds pre sented for

this Court’s review by

the Petitioner

are “Whether or

not the Appellant’s constitutional rig hts a s set forth in the due pr ocess c lause . . .

wer e violated . . .[by ] [ t] he fa ilure of the [t ]rial [j ]udge to instruct the j ury as t o how i t should rece ive and we igh the testimonyof a pe rson who has be en dec lare d to be a hostile w itness ba sed upon prior inconsistent statements [and] [t ]he failure of the [j] udg e to instruct the jury as t o the law of criminal responsibility .”3

The State ha s filed a motion seeking aff irmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appeals. The State asserts that, by failing to raise th es e cla ims in prior
proce eding s, the Petitioner has wa ived t h e rig ht to now raise these claims in the post-conviction setting. See T.C.A. § 40-30-106( g ). The S tate contends that the lower c ourt proper ly determined that the se iss ue s sh ou ld ha ve be e n ra ise d on dir e c t app e a l a nd are no w wa ive d. Th e Sta te a sk s th is Cou rt to a ff ir m th e de c isi on of

the low e r c ou rt . A nc ill ary to thi s arg ume nt, the Sta te fu rthe r a sse rt s that the Petitioner has wa i ved these claims as he ha s failed to provide this Court wit h the trial
transcripts and the jury

instructions, neither of w hich wer e made part of the appell ate r ecor d. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). In response to the State’s motion, the Petiti oner ha s filed a “ Motion for L eave of Court to Supplement Record Pursuant to T.R.A.P. 24(e) ” and “ Motion to R emove Transc ript.” The Petitioner w ishes to supplement the re cord w ith the jury instructions and that part of the tra nscript re levant to s u p p ort his assertions. The Petitioner f ails to respond to the State’s waiver arg ument.

I n order to obtain post-conviction relief
, a petiti oner must show that his or her conviction or
sentenc e is void or voidable beca use of the abridg ment of a constitutional rig ht. T.C.A. § 40-30-103. The p et i t i o n erb ea rs t h e b u rd en o f p ro v i n g fa ct u al al l ega t i o n s i n t h e p et i t i o n fo r p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n relief by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. Id. § 40-30-110( f). A post-c onviction court' s fac tual finding s are subject to a de novo re vie w b y thi s Co urt; h ow e ve r, we mus t a c c or d th e se fa c tua l f ind ing s a pr e s u m p t i o n o f c o rr e c t n e s s , w h i c h i s o v e r c o m e o n l y w h e n a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e vid e nc e is
contra ry to the post-conviction court's f actua l findings. Fields v. State, 40 S.W .3d 450, 456 (Tenn. 2 0 0 1 )

. A p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w ar e s u b j e c tt o a p u r e l y de novo re vie w by thi s Court, with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Id. at 457.

Te nn e sse e C o d e A n n o t at e d § 4 0

- 30 -1 06 (g ) c on ta ins pr ov isi on s g ov e rn ing the wa ive r o f p os tconviction alleg ations. Acc ording to this st atute:

A g round for relief is waived if the pe titioner persona lly or throug h an attorne y

failed to present it for de termination in any proce eding befor e a c ourt of co m p etent jurisd ic tio n in wh ic h th e g ro un d c ou ld h a ve be e n p re se nte d u nle ss:

(1) The claim for relief is ba sed upon a constitutional right not re cog nized as exi sting at the time of trial if e ither the fe dera l or s t ate constitut ion require s retroa ctive application of tha t rig ht; or

(2) The failure to present the g round wa s the result of state action in violation of the fede ral or sta te constitution.

Th e P e t i t i o n e r ar g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e rr e d b y f a i l i n g t o p r o p e r l y i n s t ru c t t h e j u r ywi th
reg ard to the weig ht a nd cre dibilit y to be af forde d a hostile witness’ testimony and as to the la w on criminal re sponsibili ty . The Petitioner pursue d a dire ct appe al y et fa iled to raise these cla ims which

were av ail able. The lower c ourt proper ly determined that the Petitioner' s challeng es to the jury4

instructions w ere waived beca use he failed to r aise these issues on dire ct appe al. See T.C.A. § 40- 30-106(g ).

We conclude tha t the lower c ourt proper ly dismiss ed the petition for post-conviction relief

. Moreove r, we would emphasize that a pe tition for post-conviction relief is the authorized avenue for attacking a void or voidable judgme nt a nd may not be utiliz ed as a substitut e for

the direc t appea l of the c onviction. I t is ordere d that the Stat e' s motion i s g rante d. Acc ording ly , the Petitioner’s motions t o supplement the re cord and to remove the t ransc ript are denied. The judg ment of the trial

c ou rt is a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE