### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE Ja nuary 24, 200 6 S es sio n

CLIF FOR D L EON FA RR A v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

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

No. C49, 329 R. Je rry Be ck, Judge

No. E2005-00963-CC A-R3- P C - F iled April 3, 2006

The pe titioner, Clifford L eon F arr a, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-c onviction relief. I n this appeal, he asserts that the post-conviction court e rre d by proce ed i n g wi th an evidentiary hearing e ven thoug h the state had failed to file a n answe r to his orig inal pro se pe tition. The judgme nt of the post-convic tion court is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

G AR Y R. W ADE , P. J.
, d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in w h ic h J OS EP H M. T I PTON and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Whit ney P. Tay lor, King sport, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Clifford L eon F arr a.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt At torne y Ge ne ra l; H. Gre eley Wells, Jr., District Attorney Gene ral; and J oseph Eug ene Perrin, Assis t an t Di strict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

I n Aug ust 2001, the petitioner was c onvicted of posse ssion o f m o re than 300 g rams of

coca ine with intent to resell, sale of more than 300 g rams of c ocaine , conspirac y to sell more than 300 g rams of coca ine, pos session of m ore than ten pounds of m arijuana with intent to resell, sale of more than te n pounds of m arijuana
, and conspiracy to sell more than ten pounds of marijuana . The trial court mer g ed the c onviction for possession of more than 300 g rams of c ocaine into the conviction for sa le of more than 300 g rams of coca ine and also merg ed the c onviction for possession of m o re t h an ten pounds of marijuana into the conviction for sale of mor e than ten pounds of marijuana . An ef

fec tive sentenc e of f

orty -four y ear s was imposed. On dire ct appe al, this court

va c a te d th e c on vic tio n f

or c on sp ir a c y

to s e ll m or e than te n p ou nd s o f m ari juana bu t othe rw ise aff irmed the judg ments of the trial court. See State v. Clifford L eon F arr a, No. E2001- 02235-CCAR3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Dec

. 10, 2003). The eff ective sentenc e re mained the sa me. I d. Our supre me court denied permission t o appea l on May 10, 2004.-2-

L ess than two months later, the pe titioner filed a petition f or post-conviction relief

alleg ing fi ft e e n s e pa

rate g ro un ds fo r r e lie f. Af te r the app oin tme nt o f c ou ns e l, the pe tit ion wa s a me nd e d to include five additional g rounds for relief

. The state filed an answer within thirtyday s but addresse d only the five g rou n d s prese nted in the amende d petition. The post-conviction court conducted a n evidentiary

hearing a nd ultimately

denied r elief by

written orde r.

I n this appeal, the sing le issue pre sented for our revie w is whether

the trial court erre d by conducting an evide ntiary hearing w ithout requiring the state to file a writ t en answer to the alleg ations contained in the origina l petition for post-conviction re lief. The pe titioner contends that he wa s not give n an opportunity to be hea rd on all of the issues. The state submits that the petitioner had a f ull and fair hearing on eac h of the c laims and that any err or by the post-conviction court was

no t pr e jud ic ia l.

On Marc h 17, 2005, approximately six wee ks after

the filing of the state' s answer to the

a me nd e d p e tit ion , the po st- c on vic tio n co urt con du c te d an e vid e nti ary he ari ng . T hr ou g h h is c ou ns e l, the petitioner a sserted tha t he was c onfused by the state' s failur e to answer the a lleg ations in the orig inal petition and asked tha t the state be r equire d to provide a c omplete re sponse prior to the he ari ng . T he po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt a ssu re d th e pe tit ion e r that all co ns tituti on a l c la ims raise d in bo th his or ig ina l a nd a me nd e d pe tit ion s wo uld be c on sid e re d de sp ite the state ' s failu re to fi le a sp e c if ic

answe r to the former

. The court sug g ested that eac h of the claims be a ddresse d one-by -one in orde r to d e te rm ine wh ic h w e re c on sti tut ion a l a ndwh ic h we re no t. Th e c ou rt a lso ind ic a te d th a t it

wo uld determine prior to the pre sentation of evide nce w hether the state wou l d b e re q u i red to re spond. Du ri ng the dis c us sio n o f the iss ue s r a ise d in the origi nal peti tio n, the pe tit ion e r, thr ou g h c ou ns e l, abandone d sever al of the g rounds for r elief a nd acknow ledg ed that other s had bee n waived or previously

determined. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106( g ), (h) (2003). Counsel for the petitioner the n a nn ou nc e d, " [I ]f the re is a pr op e r g ro un d ra ise d in his ori g ina l [ p]e tit ion , [the pe tit ion e r] w ou ld like it answere d, acc ording to the [s] tatute, bef ore his hea

ring , so he knows what he is g etting into."

A f te r o b s e r v in g th a t " d is c o v e r y " w a s n o t th e p u rp o s e o f th e s tatu to r y r e q u irement for a

re sp on siv e ple a din g , the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt pr ov ide d th e state the op po rtun ity to r e sp on d o ra lly
to e a c h c la im. Whe n th e pe tit ion e r i ns ist e d th a t the state fi le a n a ns we r p ri or to the he ari ng , th e po stconviction court ruled that the answe r to the ame nded petition operated as a g ener al denial, whic h was suff icient to satisfy

t h e requirements of the statute. The petitioner, throug h counsel, then

asserted that he wa s not pr epar ed to g o forwa rd beca use he had a ssumed that the hea ring would not be held in the a b sence of an a nswer f rom the state. He contende d that sever al potential witnesses

wer e not pre sent. Whil e the pe titioner' s counsel initially asked f or " more tim e, " he conc eded that his mot i v e f

o r a s k i n g w a s s o t h e s t a t e c o u l d f i l e a c o m p l e t e a n s w e r

. W h e n , h o w e v e r , t h e p os tconviction court provided assura nces that it would address all constitution al cl ai m s raised by the petitioner, counse l ultim ately ag ree d to go f

orwa rd.

During the evidentiary

hearing, the petitioner testified that his rig ht to a fair t rial was violated by the state ' s f

a ilu re to o bs e rv e the ru le of wi tne ss se qu e str a tio n. Se e Te nn . R. Ev id. 61 5; s e e a lso State v. Anthony
, 836 S.W .2d 600, 604-05 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (explaining the histor yand-3-

imp orta nc e of

the ru le ). Th e pe tit ion e r s ta te d th a t an off ic e r, B ry a n Bi sh op , tal ke d withse ve ra l st a te

w it n e s s e s b o th b e f

o r e a n d a f

te r th e ir te s ti mo n y

. Wh il e a c k n o w le d g in g th a t h e h a d not hear d the

c o n v e rsations, the petitioner a sserted that the testimonyof those witnesses w ould have be en diffe rent had they "w alked in c old, a nd been asked que stions." The pe titioner admitted that his trial counsel did not ask for " the Rule" until after the de fense rested its ca se-in-c hief.

The pe titioner also claimed that the g rand jury wa s u n c o n s ti tu ti o n a ll y

s e le cted a nd empane led in that Africa n Americ ans were sy stematically excluded. He testified that the inmate who assisted in the prepa

ration of his orig inal petition "c ould prove" that there had not been an African Ame rica n g ra ndjury

fo re ma n in mor e tha n e ig hte e n y e ars . Wh ile a sse rt ing that he ha d " ind ic tme nt s he e ts" sig ne d b y Art Sa ly e r a s g ra ndjury

fo re ma n f

ro m a s e arl y a s 19 88
, the pe tit ion e r a dmi tte d that he did not kn o w if Sa ly e r w a s A f r ic a n A me r ic a n , d id n o t k n o w h o w th e g r a n d ju r o r s w e r e s elec ted, and otherwise ha d no proof of sy stematic exclusion by

rac e. I n a re lated issue, he a sserted that his trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failing to challeng e the composition of the g rand jury . He a cknowledg ed, howeve r, that he ha d no evidenc e that it was, in fa ct, unconstitutionallycomposed.

Th e pe tit ion e r a lso c on te nd e d th a t hi s tria l cou ns e l wa s ine ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ng to s uc c e ssf

ull y

c ha lle ng e the va lid ity

of the se arc h wa

rr a nt iss ue d fo r a re nta l un it, c la imi ng that tria l c ou ns e l sh ou ld have establi s h e d th a t h e h a d r e n te d mo r e th a n o n e u n it

. A lth o u g h h e c o u ldn o t r e c a ll if h e h ad informed his trial counse l that there w as more tha n one unit, the petitioner c laimed that his counsel should have known a ny way . He a lso asserted that his counsel was inef fec tive for failing to call as

a wi tne ss h is a c c ou nta nt, Pa ul R ho te n, to e sta bli sh that he didno t e arn a liv ing by se lli ng dr ug s.

Whe n c a lle d a s a

wi tne ss b y

the pe tit ion e r, tr ia l c ouns e l te sti fi e d th a t he c ou ld n ot r e c a ll whether the petit ioner had informed him that he had rente d more than one storag e unit. Trial counse l defe nded his dec ision not t o call Rhoten as a witness, explaining that R hoten had indicated during a pre trial meeting t h at h i s t est imony would "hurt [ the petitioner] more than . . . he lp him." I t was trial counsel' s opinion that he had neve r re prese nted a c lient when the ev idence of g uilt was more

overw helming. Office r Bry an Bishop, who t estified as a witness for the state, de nied having spoken
to a ny state wi tne ss r e g ard ing the te sti mon y pr e se nte d d uring the pe tit ion e r' s tria l.

At the conc lusion of the hearing, the p o s t -convic tion court denied r elief, f inding that the petitioner had f

ailed to prove his c l ai m s b yclea r and c onvincing evidenc e. With reg ard to the petitioner' s claim about witness seque stration, the post-conviction court conclude d that the rule ha d not been de manded a nd, "e ven if it had be en," there was no indica tion that there had been a brea ch. Th e po st- c on vic tio n co urt als o de te rm ine d tha t the pe tit ion e r h a d f a ile d to pr e se nt " e ve n a

sc int ill a of proof " to support his cla im th at African Americans ha d been sy stematically excluded from the g rand jury . Finally
, the post-conviction court acc redited the testimonyof trial counse l and conc luded that trial counsel wa s not ineffe ctive for failing to challeng e the basis for the issuance of the sea rch

wa rr a nt o r f or fa ili ng to c a ll the pe tit ion e r' s a c c ou ntant a s a wi tne ss.

As indicated, the single issue prese nted for our revie w is whether

the post-conviction court

e rr e d b y c on ducti ng a n e vid e nti ary he ari ng e ve n th ou g h th e state faile d to fi le a writt e n a ns we r t o-4-

the claims ra ised in his orig inal post-conviction petit ion. Whi le Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40 -3 0- 10 8 r e qu ir e s th e state to f ile a n a ns we r o r o the r res po ns iv e ple a din g , n oth ing in the Pos tConviction Procedur e Act provides either a re medy or a sa nction for the sta te' s failure to respond. Se c tio n 1 08 sp e c if

ic a lly pr ov ide s th at th e " [f]a ilu reby the state to t ime ly

re sp on d d oe s n ot e nti tle the petitioner to re lief under the Post-Conviction P roce dure A ct." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-108(a ) (2003).

F urthe r, the pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to e sta

bli sh that he wa s p re

jud ic e d b y

the state ' s f

a ilu re to respond. See Br ewing ton v. State, No. 01C01-9808-CR-00 3 2 7 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, De c . 1 0, 19 99 ), pe rm . a

pp . d eni ed, (Ten n. 20 00 ). Th e state fi le d a n a ns we r t o e a c h o f the c la ims

ra ise d in the a me nd e d p e tition . T he po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt c on c lud e d th a t th e fi lin g op e rate d a s a g ener al denial to all of t he petiti oner' s claims for r elief. A t the evidentiary hearing, the state provided

an ora l response to e ach o f t h e petitioner' s claims prior to the commenc ement of te stimony . The post-conviction court considere d all of t h e claims prese nted in both the orig inal and ame nded petitions and permitted the petitioner to pre sent evidenc e on those claims that wer e not aba ndoned, previously

determined, or wa i ved. F inally , the state did not offe r any unexpected evide nce at the h ea ri n g.

Un de r the se c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i ti s o u r v i e w t h a tt h e p e t i t i o n e r

w a s a f f o r d e d a f u l l a n d f a ir hearing de spite the state' s failure to file a written response to the c l ai m s ra i s ed in the orig inal petition. I n conseque nce, he is not entitl ed to re lief on this issue.

Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the post-c onviction court is aff irmed.

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRES I DING JUDGE