1



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

AT JAC KSON

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. MA CK T. TRA NS OU
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. 02-338; 02- 339 Roy B. Morgan, Jr., Judge

No. W2005-02208-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled October 26, 2006

Th is m a tte r i s b e fo retheCou rt up on themotionof

app oi nt ed cou ns el se e kin g pe rm iss ionto wi thdra w f

ro m f urthe r r e pr e se ntatio n o f the Ap pe llant i n th e abo ve -c apti on e d a pp e a l pu rsuan t to Rule 22, Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als. Counsel claims that there areno meritorious issues available for a ppellate r eview. Counsel ha s compl ied with the proc edura l require ments of Rule 22, Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als. The Petitioner, Mac k T. Transou, has filed a

responsive brief pursuant to Rule 22(E), Rules of the Te nnessee Court of C ri m i n a l A p p e a l s . Af

t ercare fu l re v i ew o f t h e m o t i o n , t h e a cc o m p an y i n g An de rs brief, and the ap p e l l a t e r e c o r d , w e a g r e e w i t h c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e rt i o n t h a tt h e ap p e a l h a s n o m e r i ta n di s , a c c o r d i n g l y, frivo lou s wi th in theme a nin g of Rul e 22 , Ru le s o f the Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Crimi na l A pp e a ls. Cou ns e l’ s mo tio n to wi thdra w i s g rante d a ndthejud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is a ff irme d p ur su a nt t o Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f the Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Crimi na l A pp e a ls.
Te nn. R . App. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d 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
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., deliv er ed the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I LLI A M S and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J . joined.
Mik e Mo sie r, Jac ks on , T e nn e sse e , f or theapp e llant. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter , for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.In c a se nu m b e r 0 2 -3 5 9 , a M a d iso n C o u n ty ju ry fo u n d the A p p e llan t gu ilt y o f ra p e a n d se x u a l b a tter y. See 1 St at e v. M ack T. Tr ans ou , N o . W 2 0 0 4

- 0 1 4 7 5

- C C A

- R 3

- C D , 20 0 5 W L 1 5 4 1 8 5 9 at * 1 (T enn. C ri m . A p p . , at Jackson, J u n . 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ), af

f ’ d by , St at e v. Sc ar bor ough , – S .W .3 d – (T e n n . A u g . 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 ), pet i t i on t o r econsi der deni ed , (Sep t

. 19 , 20 0 6 ). T he f act s supp o rt i ng t hi s co nvi ct i o n reveal t hat , on M arch 17 , 20 0 2 , t he A p p el l ant ent ered t he b e d ro o m o f a six ty-t w o -yea r-o ld w o m a n li v ing in a b o a rd ing ho u se . Id

. T he A p p el l ant t hen vagi nal l y raped t he
v ic tim a n d p e rfo rm e d o ra l se x o n he r. Id

. I n case numb er 02

- 3 6 0 , a M ad i son C o unt y jur y fo und t he A p p el l ant g u ilt y o f ag g ra v a te d b u rg la ry a n d ra p e . See St at e v. M ack T. Tr ans ou , N o. W 2003- 02966- CC A- R3- CD , 2005 W L 1 1 5 4 3 4 5 a t *1 (T e n n . C rim . A p p ., at J a c k so n , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 ), af f ’ d by , St at e v. Sc ar bor ough , – S

. W

. 3 d – (T enn. A u g . 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 ), pet i t i on t o r econsi der deni ed , ( Se pt

. 19, 2006)

. T h e f ac t s s u ppor t i n g t h i s c on v i ct i on r ev ea l t h at , on D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 1 , t h e A p p e llan t un la w fully en te re d the ho m e o f S .K

. See i nf r a n. 2. T h e A p p e llan t, d e sp ite re sista n c e fro m the vic tim , suc c e e d e d in ra p ing he r a n d , t h e n , suc c e ssfu lly fled the sc e n e . Id

.

It is the p o licy o f t h e a p p e llate c o u rts to id e n tif y the vic tim s o f sex u a l o ff e n se s b y the ir initials. See S ta te 2

v. Sc ar bor ough , – S. W

. 3d – a t n . 1. Supra, n.2. 3

C O D IS is a lo c a l, sta te , an d na tio n a l d a ta b a se o f D N A p ro fil e s c o llec te d fro m c rim e sc e n e e v id e n c e a s w e ll 4

as c o nv i cted o f

fen d ers. 2

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
OnSe pte mbe r 1 4, 20 05 , th e Ap pe llant, Ma c k T . T rans ou , e nte re d g uil ty ple a s to tw o c ou nts of ag g ravated robbe ry and two counts of agg ravated rape i n Madison Countycase s numbers 02-338 a nd02 -3 39 , r e se rv ing thefo llo wi ng c e rtif ie d q ue st io n of l a w, “ Di d th e tria l c ou rt e rr in f a ili ng to su pp re ss the e vid e nc e of a DN A sa mpl e take n fr om the De fe nd a nt be c aus e he c on te nd s th a t th e sa me was take n in violation of hi s constitutional rig ht ag ainst unrea sonable sea rch and seizure[] .” F or the ag g ravated burg lary

convictions, the Appe llant rec eive d s en t en ces of fiftee n y ear s as a c are er offe nder. F or the a g g ravated ra pe convic tions, the Appellant rec eived se ntence s of six teen y ear s as a violent offe nder. The sente nces f or the a g g ravated ra

pe and a g g ravated burg lary convictions wer e or de re d to be se rv e d c on c ur re nt w ithon e a no the r b ut c on se c uti ve to the se nte nc e s impo se d in M a d i s o n C o u n t y c a s e s , n u mb e r 0 2

- 3 5 9 a n d n u mb e r 0 2

- 3 6 0 , f o r a “ [ t ] o t a l e f

f e c t i v e s e n t e n c e o f

[ f i f t y] y ear s [at one hundred pe rce nt] .” A timely notice of a

ppeal wa s filed. 1 The proof at the g uiltyplea he aring reg arding case number 02-338 pr ovided that, on or about April 8, 2002, the Appe llant unlawfully enter ed the home o f B. M

. an d committed the offe nse of 2 ag g ravated ra

pe re sulting i n bodily injury to the vi ctim. The proof reg arding case number 02-339 provided that, on or a

bout January 22, 1999, the Appellant unlawfully enter ed the home of S.K. and, 3 arm e d w itha

kn if e , c omm itt e d th e of

fe ns e of a g g ravate d r ape re su lti ng in bo dil y inj ury to the vic tim

. I n c a se nu mbe r 02 -3 39 , the Ap pe llant wa s in iti a lly ide nti fi e d a s th e pe rp e tr a tor of theof fe ns e so le ly by a CO DI S matc h o f the Ap pe llant’ s D NAsa mpl e wi th a sa mpl e take n fr om the ra

pe vic tim

. 4 Th e Cod is s a mpl e wa s obtaine d fr om the Ap pe llant wh ile a t West Te nn e sse e State Pe nit e nti ary in 1999 for se rv i ce o f a sentenc e re sulting fr om a 1997 fe lony conviction. The blood sample w as pr ov i d e di n c o n

j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e s t a n d ar di n t ak e p r o c e d u r e s a tt h e p r i s o n f a c i l i t y . T h i s s a m p le provided by

the Appellant in 1999 re sulted in the CODI S match of his DNA to a D NA sample taken3

from the r ape of S.K. I n May 2002, as a result of the m atch, the A ppellant was taken into custody for que stioning and submitted another blood sample for the purpose of perf orming a “c onfirmatory test comparing the DNA pr ofile fr om t h e k n o wn b lood sample to the evidentiary sample for confirmation.” The 2002 blood sample c onfirmed a match with the 1999 ra

pe of S.K. The re w as an unsolved 2001 ra

pe of S.K. as well as t he unsol ved rape of C.T. in Marc h 2002 and the unsolved rapeof B .M. in April 2002. All four ra pes involved similar fac tual circ umstances. Thesamples of evidenc e collec ted from thesethree unsolved rape s matched the kn o w ns amp le o f Ap p e ll an t T ransou.

I n his moti on to suppress, the Appellant alleg ed that the 1999 blood sample obtained from his person at West Tenne ssee St at e P en i tentiary was an illegal searc h of his person a s the DNA sample wa s obtained in violation of Tenne ssee Code section 40-35-321( d)(1) , in that the underlying offe nse wa s not committed on or before J uly 1, 1998. The Appe llant also arg ued that the 2002 blood sa mpl e mus t a lso be su pp re sse d a s it wa s n ot c on se ns ua l.
The Te nnessee Supreme Court rec ently addre ssed the issue re serve d as a c ertified que stion of law by the Appellant. I n addre ssing the DNA samples obtained fr om Appellant Mac k Transou in as much as the samples relate d to the Appellant’s identific ation as the pe rpetrator in Madison Countycase s numbers 02-359 and 02-360, t he supreme court held t hat “[ w]hen [Appellant Transou] submitt ed to a blood dra w in September 1999,[] Transou did not fall within the pa ra m et ers of the DNA c ollection statute.[] ” S carborough , – S.W .3d at – (footnotes omitted). Thesupreme c ourt fu rthe r he ld that App e llant Tr a ns ou “ va lid ly c on se nte d to theblo oddr a w [at We st T e nn e sse e State Penitentiary ] and its s ubsequent a naly sis.” Id. The Te nnesseeSupreme Court did not addre ss the validity of the Appe llant’s consent to the May 2002 blood sample. Id. at n.3.
I n the direc t appea ls from ca se numbers 02- 359 and 02-360, this C ourt revie wed the trial c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that th e Ap pe llant’ s May 2002 c on se nt w a s “ fr e e ly , v olu nta ri ly a ndint e lli g e ntl y g iven.” See State v. Mac k T. Transou , No. W2004-01475-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1541859 at * 1; State v. M

ack T. Transou , N o. W20 03 -0 29 66 -C CA -R 3- CD , 2 00 5 WL 11 54 34 5 at *1 . Fro m a revie w of the re cord in the present c ase, the appellate rec ord in Madison County casenumber 02- 359, and the a

ppellate r ecor d in Madison Countycase number 02- 360, it appear s that one suppression hea

ring was held reg arding the validi ty of t he Appellant’s 1999 and 2002 blood samples on J anuary

9, 2003. Thus, this Court has previously revie wed the validity of the May 2002 consent on tw o p ri or occ asions. On both occa sions, this Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the consent wa s fre ely , voluntarily and intellige ntly

g iven. Ap p o i n t ed counsel ha s filed a Rule 22 motion and acc ompanying brief stating that afte r a c on sc ie nti ou s r e vie w o f the re c or d andla w, he ha s f ou ndno thi ng in the re c or d that mi g ht a rg ua bly support an appeal. We a g ree . This Court has previously upheld the dec ision of the trial court f inding the Appellant’ s May 2002 consent to a blood sample w as fr eely , voluntarily and intellige ntly

g iven. Ou r S up reme Co urt ha s d e te rm ine d th a t th e 19 99 blo odsa mpl e c oll e c te d d uring ro uti ne inm a te intake at West Tenne ssee State Penitentiary was voluntarily g iven. Our revie w of the re cord and the rele vant leg al authority

in this m atter convinces us that no rea son exis ts not to adopt the holdings of4

the Tenne ssee Supre me Court and of two prior pane ls of this Court who have pre viouslyaff irmed the trial court’s finding s on the identical is sues arising fr om the same proc eeding . I n addition, we have c onsid er ed co u n s el’s R ule 22 brief . Ba sed upon our r eview of the re cord and pleading s, we ag reewith counsel’s a ssertion that the appe al has no merit and is frivolous with i n t h e meaning of Rule 22, Rules of

the Court of Criminal Appea ls. Accor dingly , appointed counse l Mike Mosier’s motionto w ith dr a w i s g rante d. We a rec onvi nced th at thetria l c ou rt re a c he d th e c or

re c t r e su lt. Be causean opinion in this m atter w ould have no pr ece dential value, w e af firm the trial c ourt’s ac tion in a c c or danc e wi th R ule20 , Ru le s o f the Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Crimi na l A pp e a ls.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE