### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE

ALL EN DA LE C UTS HAW v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Gr eene C ounty No. 01CR074 Jam es E. Beckner, Judge

No
. E 2 0 0 3 -0 1 0 2 1 -C CA -R 3 -PC F ebruary 18, 2004
The Petitioner, Allen Da le Cutshaw, appe als the trial court' s dismis sal of his petition for writ of e rror cora m nobis. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court aff irm the trial court' s denial of re lief pursua

nt t o Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petition presents no cog nizable gr ou n d fo r co ram nobis re lief. Ac cording ly , the State' s motion i s g rante d and the judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J O SEP H M. T I PTON and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Allen Dale Cutshaw, pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Eliz abeth T. Ry an, Senior Counsel; E ric D. Christiansen, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION The pe titioner was convi ct ed of se cond deg ree murder a nd sentenc ed to twenty -five y ear s imp ri so nme nt. This co ur t a ff ir me d h is c on vic tio n a

nd se nte nc e on

a pp e a l. S ta te v. Al le n D a le Cutshaw, No. 03C01-9711-CC-00521 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, Nov. 23, 1999), app. de nied (Tenn. 2000) . The pe titioner s o u gh t post-conviction re lief base d on his claim of ineff ective
a ssi sta nc e of tr ia l c ou ns e l. Th e tr ia l court de nie d re lie f an d this c ourt a ff ir me d on a pp e a l. A lle n D a le Cutshaw v. State, No. E2002-00438-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, J an. 22, 2003), app. denie d (Tenn. 2003) . Whil e his applica tion for per mission t o appea l wa s p en d i n g in the supreme c o u rt, th e p e ti ti o n e r f il e d a p e ti ti o n f

o r w r it o f e r

r o r c o r a m n o b is in th e c o u rt b e lo w. On April 9, 2003, the trial cour t dismi ssed the petition. I ts order state d in releva nt portion:

The same issues raised in the pre sent petition have be en ra ised at pre vious he a ri ng s and

a pp e a ls a nd have be e n h e ld t o b e wi tho ut m e ri t.-2- This petition is in eff

ect a motion to reconsider those issues. N o rea l gr ounds for a writ of er ror c oram nobis ar e ra ised.

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated Section 40-26-105 provides for the i ssuance of t he wr it of err or c or a m no bis a s f

oll ow s:
The re lief obtainable by

this procee ding sha ll be confine d to err ors dehor s the
rec ord and to matter s that were not or could not ha ve been litig ated on the tr ial of the
case , on a motion for a ne w trial, on appe al in the nature of a w rit of error, on writ of
err or, or in a habeas corpus proce eding

. Upon a showing by the def endant that the defe ndant was without fault i n failing to present c erta in evidence at the prope r time,
a wr it of err or cor am nobi s will li e for subsequently

or new ly discovere d evidenc e rela ting to matters which wer e litigated at the trial if the judg e dete rmines that such
e vid e nc e may

have re su lte d in a diff

e re nt j ud g me nt, ha d it

be e n p re se nte d a t th e tr ia l.
“[T] he wr it is an ex cee dingly n ar ro w re m ed y

appropr iate only

when a n issue was not addre ssed or c ould not have bee n addre ssed at trial be cause it was somehow hidden or unknown and would have pr evente d the rendition of the judgme nt ha d it be en known to the court.” Newsome v. Sta te , 9 95 S.W. 2d

12 9, 13 4 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ); Te nn . Co de An n. §4 0- 26 -1 05 ; State v. Ha rt , 911 S.W . 2d 371, 374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

.
I n the pre sent case , with r espec t to his post-c onviction pr ocee ding, the petitioner cla ims that he did no t r e c e ive a

“ fu ll a nd fa ir ” he a ri ng be c a

us e the state did

no t ans we r a

nd the tr ia l c ou rt

did not addre ss eac h of the asser ted g rounds for r elief. The petitioner fur ther pre sents sever al claimed
err or at trial. He alleg es that 1) the sta te fa iled t o n o tify him of its int ent to seek e nhance d punishment; 2) cer

tain enhanc ement fa ctors we re e rrone ously applied; 3) the indictment was void; 4) the tr ial cou rt erred

in i ns tr uc tin g the jur

y on the de fi nit ion

of “ kn ow ing ly ,” a nd

5) the state fabr icated e vidence and the c hai n o f cu s t o d y of ce rtain evide nce w as broke n. None of the petitione r’ s al l egations relate to matters that the pe titioner, throug h no fault of his own, c ould not have ra ise d a t tr ia l, i n a

mot ion fo r n e w tr ia l or on a

pp e a l. As a re su lt, the wr it of e rr or c or a m no bis is not available to the pe titioner and the trial c ourt proper ly denied r elief.

Ac c or din g ly , the state ’s mot ion is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he c ourt be low is a ff ir me d in
acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

____ _ __________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRES I DI NG JUDGE