### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs D ec em be r 18, 200 7

JEREM Y C ROS BY v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2003-C- 1601 Steve D ozier , Judge

No. M2007- 00611-CCA -R3-P C - F iled April 25, 2008

Th e pe tit ion e r, Jer e my

Cr os by , ap pe a ls the Da

vid so n Coun ty Cr imi na l Co ur t’ s o rd e r d ism iss inghis pro se pe tition for post-convict i o n re l i ef w ithout a hear ing. T he state c ontends that the trial cour t pr op e rl y dis mis se d mo st o f t

he pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims bu t a dmi ts that the po st- c onvic tio n c ourt sh ou ld have a pp oin te d coun sel to a dd re ss t he pe tit ion e r’ s c la im o f i ne ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of a pp e llate counsel. Af

ter re viewing the rec ord, we aff irm the majority

of the post-c onviction court’s orde r but
rema nd the ca se to the post-convic tion court for the appointment of counse l and additional pr oc e e din g s r e g ard ingthe pe tit ion e r’ s c la im o f i ne ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of a pp e llate c ouns e l.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed in Par t and R e ve r se d in P ar t; Ca se Re m ande d.

D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

J ere my Crosby , Only , Tenne ssee, pr o se.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Sop hia S. L e e , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J ohnson, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; P amela S. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

F oll ow inga May 20 04 jur y tr ia l in Da vid so n Co un ty

Cr imi na l Co ur

t, t he pe tit ion e r, Jer e my Crosby was c onvicted of one count of possession of ove r 0.5 g ram of a controlled substance (coc aine) with intent to sell or deliver and one cou n t of unlawful use of drugpara pherna lia. The defe ndant re ceive d an ef

fec tive sentenc e of e ighte en y ear s as a Rang e I , standard of fende r, in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. On di rec t appea l, the petitioner, re prese nted by new c ounsel, alleg ed that the trial cour

t erre d in failing to gr ant his motion t o s u p p re ss, and that he r ece ived the inef fec tive-2-

assistan ce o f counse l at trial. This court af firmed the pe titioner’s sentenc e on appe al. State v. J ere my S. Crosby , No. M 2005-00548-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 189384, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App. J an. 26, 2007), no app. f

iled.

On Februa

ry 28, 2007, the petit ioner filed a pro se pe tition for post-conviction relief . I n the petition, the petitioner allege d: (1) the evidenc e was insufficient to convict him of intent to sell; (2) the state fa iled to prove the e lement of possession; (3) the evidenc e produc ed at tria l was base d on an unconstitutional sear ch and se izure; (4) trial counsel was ineffe ctive; (5), (6), (7) the a ffidavit wa s invalid in that it di d not provide proba ble ca use to arr est, was inconsistent and c ontradicte d trial te sti mony ; ( 8) the state wi thh e ld e vid e nc e re g ard ingthe name of a wi tne ss; (9 ) t

he state e ng a g e d in prosec utorial misc o n d uct by knowing ly

using f alse e vidence and conf

licting testimony

at the suppression hea

ring and in the af

fidavit; (10) improper

chain of custody ; (11) the evidence was ba sed
on an unla wf ul a rr e st b e c a us e the mot e l c le rk wa s an ag e nt fo r the state ; ( 12 ) t he tr ia l c ourt

us e d f a lse inf or matio n to de te rm ine his se nte nc e ; ( 13 ), (1 4) the tr ial cou rt de nie d th e de fe nd ant’ s r e qu e st t o produce the name of

the motel cler

k and the opportunity

to test evidence ; (15) the tria l court er red in not permitting him to interview the motel cle rk; (16) e vidence was a lleg edly destroy ed i n the motel room; (17) trial counse l was ineff ective at the sentenc ing he aring ; (18), (19) , (2 0 ) t he trial court a bused its discretion by

failing to rule on issues ar ising fro m his moti on for ne w trial and motion to dismiss and by dismiss ing a juror afte r the trial beg an; (21) his sente nce is e x cessive; ( 22) the tr ia l c ourt

de nie d th e pe tit ion e r a

ri g ht t o a

fa ir tr ia l in that he was no t pe rm itt e d to fi re his
a tto rn e y ; and

(2 3) a pp e llate c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto o bta in a

fu ll transcri pt a

nd ra ise
a ll r e le va nt i ssu e s.
On Marc h 7, 2007, the post-conviction court dismiss ed the petition without a hear ing. T he post-conviction cour

t held that issues (1)-( 4), (11) , (17), a nd (22) we r e p r e v io u s ly

addre ssed on direc t appea l and there fore p re v i o u s ly deter mined. The c ourt held that all other issues othe r than the ineffe ctive assistan c e o f

a p p e ll a te c o u n sel wer e improper

g rounds for post-c onviction relief a nd wer e waived be cause they

wer e beingraised f

or the fir st tim e on post-convic tion. Rega rding the ineffe ctive assistanc e of a ppellate c ounsel claim, the post-c onviction court conc luded: Specifica lly

the petitioner a lleg es the [appellate co u n sel] shoul d have r aised the Court’s failure to rule o n i n co n s istent statements made by state’s witnesse s during his moti on for a

new tria l. The Court finds the petitioner’ s cl ai m s would not have had mer it a n d t h erefore counsel wa s not deficient f or fa iling to ra ise the issue on appea l. There fore , the ar g ument does not have merit under the post-conviction proce dure a ct and sha ll be dismiss ed.

I t is fr om t

his or de r t

hat th e pe tit ion e r a

pp e a ls.

A N A LY S IS

I nitially , we conclude that the post-conviction cour t properly dismiss ed the major ity

of the petitioner’s c laims. W e ag ree with the post-convict i o n court that the issues it identified a s being-3-

previously

deter mined, with the exception of sufficie ncy of evide nce a

nd failure to prove a

n essential
e le me nt o f t

he of fe ns e , w e re a dd

re sse d on dir e c t a

pp e a l and the re fo re may no t be g ro un ds fo r p os tconviction re lief. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 106(h) ( 200 6 ). T h e sufficie ncy and proof

of
e sse nti a l e le me nt i ssu e s, a lon g wi th a ll r e ma ini ngiss ue s o the r t ha n in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

n c e o f a pp e llate counsel, a re waived because they wer e not addre ssed on direc t appea l, see id. § (g ), and beca use they
are no t is su e s th a t w ou ld r e nd e r t he pe tit ion e r’ s “ c on vic tio n o r se nte nc e

. . . void or vo ida ble be c a us e of t he abridg ement of any rig ht g uara nteed by the Constitut ion of Tenne ssee or the Constitut ion of the United States,” Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 130 (2006), as is r equire d to procure relief under the Pos t- Convic tio n Pr oc e dure Ac t. T he re fo re , th e on ly iss ue rai sed by

the pe tit ion e r t

hat w e wi ll add re s s i s wh et h er

t h e t ri al co u rt p ro p er l y

s u m m ar i l y

d i s m i s s edt h e p et i t i o n er ’s i n ef fe ct i ve assistanc e of appe llate counse l claim for f ailure to state a

colora ble claim.

Whe the r a

tr ia l c ourt

pr op e rl y dis mis se d a

pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f f or fa ilure to state a c la im fo r re lie f is a que sti on of law. Se e B ur

ne tt v . St a te , 92 S.W .3d 403, 406 (Tenn. 2002)

. Thus, an appe llate cour

t’s revie w of the tria l court' s dismis s al o f the petition is de novo

. See id.; F ie lds v. State , 40 S.W .3d 450, 457 (Tenn. 2001)

. Th e Pos t- Convic tio n Pr oc e dure Ac t st a te s th a t a pet iti on fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f m us t specify the g rounds for r elief a

nd set forth fa cts to establish a colorable claim for relief. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106( d) (2006). “A colora ble claim is a claim, in a petition for post-conviction relief , that, if taken as true, in the l ight most favor able to petitioner, would entitle petitioner t o relief under the Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t.” Tenn. Sup. C t. R. 28, § 2(H). When the f acts, take n as true, fa il to demonstrate that the petitioner is e ntitled to relief , then the trial court may

dismiss the petition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106( f). When the t rial court conclude s that a petition does not prese nt a “colorable claim,” it may summarily dismiss the petit ion without appointing counse l. See B la ir v. State , 96 9 S.W.2 d 423 , 424 (T e nn . Crim . App . 199 7) ; see a lso Pe wi tt v. St a te , 1 S.W .3d 674, 674 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (holding that a petition alleg ing “ no particula rs” of inef fe ctive
a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l di d n ot s tate a

“ c olo ra ble c la im” ). I f the pe tit ion do e s st a te a

c olo ra ble c la im, the c o u rt s h a l l e n t e r a p r e l i m i n ar y o r d e r

. S e e T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 0

- 3 0

- 1 0 7 ( a )

. T h e o rd e r s ha ll appoint counsel fo r t h e p et itioner if the petitioner is indig ent and r equests counse l. I d. § 40-30- 107(b)( 1). The or der sha ll also direct the pe titioner or the petitioner’ s counsel to file a n amende d peti t i o n , o r a written notice that no amendme nt will be filed, within thirty day s of the entr

y of the order . I d. § 40-30-107( b)(2)

.
I n this case, the state conc edes that the petitioner’s inef fec tive assistance of appe llate counse l claim was a co l o rable claim and wa s not waived. We ag ree . This court has pr eviously held that “alleg ations reg ardingthe ineff ectivene ss of appe llate counse l, when trial and appellate counse l are differ ent, ar e not waive d under the Post-Convi ction Act when those alleg ations are not presente d on direc t appea l.” St at e v. J ohn Earl Sca les, No. M2001-00310-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 1949697, at *2 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. Au g . 2 3, 20 02 ) ( c iti ngKe nd ri c ks v. State , 13 S.W. 3d

40 1, 40 5 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 1999)). Th e fa ct t h at a pe titioner raised c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of tria l counsel on direc t appea l, as did this petiti oner, doe s not waive c onsideration of ine ffe ctive assistanc e of appellate counsel on post conviction. L ara iel Wint on v. State, No. E2006-02 392-CCA-R3-PC, 2007-4-

WL 2 4 3 8 1 1 2 , a t * * 1

- 2 ( T e n n

. Cr im

. A p p

. A u g

. 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 )

. T h e s e h o ld in g s , c o u p le d w it h the fa ct that the petitioner’s ine ffe ctive assistanc e of a ppellate c ounsel claim was not pre viously deter mined and was based on specific alleg ations of counsel’s failure to a cquire a complete transcr ipt and argue all issues on appea l, lead us to conc lude that t he petiti on prese nted a colora ble claim for relief a

nd
c on se qu e ntl y

the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d b y summa ri ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ion

a s to thi s c la im.

CONCL USI ON

Ba sed upon the fore g oing, the judgme nt of the post-convic tion court denying the petition for post-conviction re lief is a f f ir me d r e g a r d in g a ll issues other

than the petitioner’ s ineffe ctive assistanc e of appellate counsel claim. As to that issue, the judgme nt of the post-convic tion court is reve rsed and the c a se re mand e d f

or a dd iti on a l pr oc e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththi s o pin ion and wi th t he Pos tConviction P roce dure A ct.

___________________________________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE