### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE N ove m be r 16, 200 4 S es sio n
MA RIO P END ERG RA SS v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

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

No. 93-C- 1345 Seth Norm an, Jud ge

No. M2003- 02144-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Janu ary 25, 2005

The pe titioner appea ls the summary dismiss al of his pe tition for post-c onviction relief, a rg uing that h e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n ap p o in te d p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n c o u n s e l a n d g iv e n a n e v id e n ti ar y h e aring . We conclude that the petitioner pre sents a color able c laim for re lief under the more le nient standards aff orded a pro s e petition. Ac co rd i n gl y , we r ever se the summary dismiss al of the pe tition and
rema nd the ca se to the post-convic tion court for the appointment of counse l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t R e ve r se d and Rem anded

A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined. Cy nth ia M. F ort, N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e llant, Ma

ri o Pe nd e rg ra ss.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; El iza be th T . Ry a n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J ohnson, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and Dan Ha mm, Assist ant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

F AC TS

Ba sed on his participation in the 1993 kidnapping and murder of a Nashville tax icab driver, the petitioner , M ar i o Penderg rass, wa s convicted in a bench trial of pre meditated murde r, fe lony murder, e specia lly

ag g ravated kidnapping , and espe c ia ll y a g g r av ate d

r obbery . After

merg ing the two first deg ree murder c onvictions, the trial court se n t enced the petitioner to a n eff ective se ntence of life plus 44 y ear s. This court af firmed the c onvictions and sentenc es on direct ap p ea l , and the
su pr e me c ou rt

de nie d th e pe tit ion e r’ s a pp lic a tio n f

or pe rm iss ionto a

pp eal

. S ee S ta te v. Ma

ri o Penderg rass, No. M1999- 02532-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 517133, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. A pr. 5, 2002), perm. to appeal de nied (Te nn. Oct. 7, 2002).Pat t er s on r ec ou n t ed at t r i al t h at t h e pet i t i on er r es pon ded t o h i s a cc ompl i ce ’ s r ema r k a bou t k i l l i n g s omeon e by 1

w arn i ng him t o st o p t alking a nd t ha t i f he w as “ go i ng d o w n,” his acc o m p l i ce wa s go i ng wit h him

. M ario P en d erg rass, 2002 W L 517133, a t * 4. O n c r os s
- ex ami n at i on , Pat t er s on a ck n owl edg ed h e h ad u s ed coc ai n e “ ‘ of f a n d on ’ for “a ppr ox i mat el y f

i f t ee n y ea r s ” an d h ad s pen t t h e day of t h e mu r der “ s mok i n g mar i j u an a, dr i n k i n g bee r , an d us i ng
coc ai n e. ” I d.
-2- On Ap ril 16, 2003, the petitioner filed a pro s e , f il l- in

- th e
- b lan k “ Pe ti ti o n f o r Re lie f fr om Conviction or S entenc e” in which he raised numerous grounds for relief and requested that c ounsel be app oin te d, bu t f

a ile d to pr ov ide a ny

sp e c if ic fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns in s up po rt of his c la ims

. Acc ording ly , on May 12, 2003, the pos t-conviction court enter ed an order g ranting the petitioner a n a dd iti on a l th irty

day s to su pp le me nt h is p e tit ionwi th the sp e c if ic a lleg a tio ns of

fa c t onwh ic h h is claims for r elief w ere based. The petiti oner responded with a pro s e “Supplemental Pleading s and Memorandum of

L aw in Support” i n wh i ch , as stated by the petitioner, the f

ollowing g rounds for
re lie f w e re a sse rt e d:

A) Pro s e c u ti o nin te n tionally withheld evidenc e as to witnesse s[’] statements that was f

avora ble to the petitioner’s [sic] viol ates du e pr oc e ss rig hts

. B) Pe tit ion e r w a s il le g a lly se ize d a ndarr e ste d w ith ou t w arr a nt. C) Petitioner[’s] convictions was [sic] based on evidenc e that
was c onstitut ional l y insufficient, a nd the unconstitutional failure of the prose cution to disclose to the p etitioner’s [sic]
e vid e nc e fa vo ra

ble t o the p e tit ion e r d e nie d h im d ue pr oc e ss ri g hts

. D) Petitioner[’s] convictions was [sic] based on evidenc e that
was c onstitut ionally

insufficient ba sed upon inconsistent te sti mon y by thewi tne sse s, wh ic h d e nie d h im d ue pr oc e ss ri g hts

. E) Petitioner waived rig hts to jury trial was not know in gl yand in te ll ig e n tl y

[s ic ]. F) Pe tit ion e r w a s d e nie d th e e ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of co un sel i n violation of [t he] Si x th Am endment to the United States Co n s ti tu ti o n a l [ s ic ].

I n his acc ompany ing me morandum of law , the petitioner as serted that the prosec ution intentionally

with held statements by

witnesses that would have been f avora ble to his defense , inclu d i n g t h e ad m ission of J ames Patterson that, after fiftee n y ear s of drug abuse, he was e ither
un able to r e me mbe r thin g s o r r e me mbe re d th e m in a c c ur a te ly ; he wa s int im idat e d b y po lic e int o 1-3-

makin g a state me nt f

oll ow ing his wa

rr a ntl e ss, ill e g a l arr e st; he did no t kn ow ing ly a ndint e lli g e ntl y waive his rig ht to a jury

t ri al ; an d h is trial counsel we re ine ffe ctive for failing to seek “ proper disc o v e r y ” o r in v e s ti g a te th e w it n e s s e s ’ in c o n s is te n t s tate me n ts , to r a is e a n y o b je c ti o n s to the inconsistent testimonyat trial, or to prope rly prepa re the petitioner “f

or a f air trial.”

I n an opinion filed on Aug ust 7, 2003, the post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner ha d not met his burden of provi n g h i s all eg ations by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. Among other thing s, t h e court noted that whether the petitioner ha d knowing ly waived his ri g ht t o tria l by

jury a nd wh e the r his state me nt sh ou ld h a ve be e n s up pr e sse d a s th e re su lt o f h is alleg edly unlawful a

rre st were issues which had previously been de termined on dire ct appe al. The
c ou rt fo un d th a t th e pe tit io ner hadfaile d to pr ov ide a su ff ic ie nt f a c tua l ba sis fo r h is o the r c la ims , inc lud ing his c la im o f i ne ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l:

I n the petition, petitioner makes only on e alleg ation of ineff

ective assistance of counse l, which is based on c ounsel’s fa i l u re to see k proper disc o very

reg arding witnesses’ testimony . Howeve r, petitioner negl ec ts to provide any support for this contention or further expound on what measure s counsel failed to take to insure a proper defe nse for the petitioner. For absenc e of de tail and lack of a so lidfa c tua l ba sis up on wh ic h a c la im m a y

be fo un de d, thi s iss ue is without merit.

There afte r, t he petiti oner f iled a pro s e notice of appea l to this c ourt, followed by a motion for the a ppointment of appellate counsel, whic h we g rante d.
AN AL YSI S

T h e p e ti ti o n e r c it e s B il ly

Jo e H e n d e r s o n v
. St a te , N o
. E 2 0 0 1

- 0 0 4 3 8

- CC A

- R3

- PC , 2 0 0 1 WL 1464544, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 19, 2001), to arg ue that the a lleg ations of fa ct he pr ovided in his supplemental m emora ndum of l aw, when vi ewe d under the more lenie nt standards a ffor ded
a pro se pe tit ion , we re su ff ic ie nt t o p re se nt a

c olo ra ble c la im f

or po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f. Th e State disag ree s, arg uing that the petitioner failed to set forth “c l ea r an d specific fac ts upon which relief could be gr anted.” We review the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition, as an issue of law , de novo on the re cord w ithout a presumption of corr ectne ss. See B urnett v. State, 92 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tenn. 2002)

. Se c tio n 4 0- 30 -1 06 of the Pos t- Con vic tio n Pro c e du re Ac t of 199 5 pro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art :

(d) The petition must contain a clea r and specific statement of all g rounds u pon which re lief is soug ht, including f ull disclosure of the fa c tua l ba sis of

tho se groun ds

. A b area lle g a tio n th a t a co n stitut ional rig ht has bee n violated and mer e conc lusions of law sh a ll n ot b e su ff

ic ie nt t o w arr a nt any

fu rthe r p ro c e e din g s. F a ilu reto-4- state a fa c tua l ba sis fo r the g ro un ds a lle g e d sh a ll re su lt in i mme diate dismiss al of the pe tition

. I f, howe ver, thepetition was filed pro se , the judg e may

enter an orde r stating that the petitioner must fi l e an amended petition that complies with thi s section within fifteen ( 15) day s or the petition will be dismiss ed.
(e ) If a pe tit ion a me nd e d ina c c or da nc e wi th s ub se c tio n ( d) is inc omp le te , t he court

sh a ll d e te rm ine wh e the r the pe tit ion e r i s indige nt and in need of

counsel. The court may appoint counsel a nd enter a pre li m i nary

order if nec essary

to secure the filing of a
c omp le te pe tit ion . Co un se l may fi le a n a me nd e d p e ti ti on wi thi n thi rty (3 0) day s o f a

pp oin tme nt. (f) Upon re ceipt of a

petition in proper form, or upon rec eipt of an amende d petition, the court shall ex amine the a lleg ations of fa ct in the petition. I f the fac ts a lleg ed, taken as true, f ail to show that the petitioner i s entitled to relief or fail to show that the claims for r elief have not be en waived or previously determined, the petition sha ll be dismiss ed. The order of dismiss al shall set forth th e c ourt’s conclusions of law

. Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 30 -1 06 (d )- (f ) ( 20 03 ). A pe tit ion pr e se nts a “ c olo ra ble c la im, ” su ff

ic ie nt t o wi ths ta ndsu mma

ry dis mis sa l, w he n th e fact s alle g e d, “ ‘t ake n a s tr ue ’” a nd “ ‘i n th e lig ht m os t favor able to [the] pe titioner’” would entitle the petitioner to r elief un d er t h e P o st-Conviction Procedur e Act. Arnold v. State, 143 S.W .3d 784, 786 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 2 (H )) . F urthe rm or e , a s th e pet it ione r p oin ts o ut, “ [i]n d e c idi ng wh e the r a ‘c olo ra ble c la im’ is prese nted, pro s e petitions should be held to less stringe nt standards than f ormal plea dings dr afte d by lawy ers,” with the petitioner g iven the aid of counsel if it cannot be conc lusively determined from the p e ti ti o n a n d a c c o mp a n y in g r e c o r d s w h e th e r h e is e n ti tl e d to r e li e f u n d e r th e A c t. BillyJ oe Hende rson, 2001 WL 1464544, at *1 (citing Allen v. State, 854 S.W .2d 873, 87 5 (T en n
. 1993); Swanson v. State, 749 S.W .2d 731, 734 (Tenn. 1988) ). Although the issue is close, we ag ree with the petit ioner that, when viewed in the more liber al light af forde d a pro se petition, the alleg ations of fac t c ontained in the orig inal and ame nded petitions
we re su ff ic ie nt t o e nti tle him to the app oin tme nt of c ou ns e l to a id him in dr a ft ing a mor e c omp le te petition. At differe nt points throug hout his memorandum of law , the petitioner a lleg ed, among other things, that va

rious witnesses, including J ames Patterson, had made statements that would have be en fa v o ra b l e t o h i s d ef

en s e. He fu rt h eral l ege d t h attri al co u n s el fa i l ed t o o b t ai n t h e st at em en t s t h ro u gh proper discovery

or adequate investigation and that such failure constituted “‘ cause and pre judice’ which denie d [hi m] a fair trial.” The se alleg ations, taken a s true, would entitle the petitioner to relief under the Post-Convi ction Procedur e A ct. See g ener ally Arnold, 143 S.W.3d at 786 (concluding that pro s e pe tit iona sse rt ing that tria l cou ns e l wa s ine ff e c tiv e fo r faili ng to se e k c ha ng e of ve nu e , insp ite of “[c]onstant [ e]x ploitation” by news media

in county wher e ca se tried, prese nted colora ble claim).-5-

There fore , we r ever se the de nial of the pe tition and remand to the post-c onviction court for the
app oin tme nt o f c ou ns e l.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE