### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A pr il 8, 200 8 S es sio n
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . CAREY HAYNES, JR.

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forDyerCounty

No. C04-418 LeeMoore , Judge

No. W2007-00886-C CA-R 3-PC - Filed September 9, 2009

Th e pe tit ion e r, Care y H a yn e s, Jr ., wa s c on vic te d o f a Cla ss B a nd a Cla ss C fe lon y in vo lvi ng the sa le of coc aine a nd rec eived an eff ective e ighteen-ye ar se ntence

. The only issue raised on direc t appea l was inef fec tive assistance of counse l, which was de emed waived bec ause it wa s not included in the mot ion fo r n e w t

ri a l. T he pe tit ion e r h a s n ow fi le d s e e kin g p os t- c on vi cti on rel ief, a ndthe po stconviction court has grante d the petitioner a delaye d appea l and ruled that his claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counse l was pre viously determined. As to the delaye d appea l, we addr ess whethe r the evidenc e wa s sufficie nt to support the petitioner’s c onvictions and whethe r the pe titioner’s sentenc e was proper

. We further addre ss w hether the post-conviction court proper ly de nied r el i ef

. Af ter
c are fu l r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud gme nts fr om the low e r c ou rt s. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Af firme d

J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which N OR MA M C G EE O GLE and J. C. M C L IN , JJ., joined. Martin E. Dunn, Dye rsburg, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Care y Hayne s, Jr. Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Genera l and R eporte r; Lac y Wilber, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral; and C. Phi llip B ivens, District Attorney Ge nera l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION The pe titioner was convic ted af ter s el l i n g cocaine to an under cover police off

icer on two
occa sions. A confidential i n fo rm ant provided information to the Dyersbur g Police Depa rtment’s
narc otics unit that the petitioner was a known drug de aler

with coca ine in his pos s essi on. The informant phoned the petitioner and arr anged a meeting time and location to pur chase cocaine. The informant re quested a n “eight ball” of cocaine, which wa s on e- ei ghth of an ounc e. The police installed audio and video equipment i n the petitioner’s c ar, and an under cover police off icer and the informant proc eede d to the agre ed upon location.-2-

The pe titioner met the under cover office r and the informant at the a gree d upon location. The petitioner ar

rived on a bicycle and approa ched the passenge r window of the automobile, wher e the underc over of

fice r wa s seate d. The undercove r officer rolled down t he window, and the petitioner tossed in a small bag conta ining cocaine

. The office r handed the petitioner $100, and the pe titioner rode a way. The se eve nts occurr ed on April 7, 2004.

The unde rcove r off

icer and the informant conta cted the pe titioner again a nd purcha sed additional cocaine from him on May 13, 2004. This sale wa s made at the petitioner’s re sidence . It
was raining on the day of the o ffense. Whe n the petitioner c ame outside his re sidence , the underc over of

fice r got into the back se at of the car and the petitioner got into the front pa ssenger seat of the c ar. The informant drove the t hree men away from the petitioner’s r esidenc e and towa rd the Dyer sburg s hopping mall. They discussed the cocaine during the drive, and the petitioner pr oduced
a sma ll b a g o f w hit e po wd e r. Th e pe tit ion e r g a ve the ba g to the inf orma nt w ho , inturn, ha nd e d it to the underc over of

fice r. The of

fice r paid t h e petitioner and pla ced the drugs into his top l eft pocket. A vide o rec ording was also made of this tra nsaction, and both vide os wer e shown to the jury du ri ng the tr ia l.

An a ge nt wi th the Te nn e sse e Bur e a u o f I nv e sti gatio n c ri me la b te sti fi e d th a t sh e te ste d b oth bags of c ocaine and dete rmined that the fir st bag contained 1.9 grams of cocaine and the second ba g contained 0.4 gr ams of coc aine. The pe titioner testified on his ow n behalf at trial. He said that on the day of the fir st offense , the informant pulled up next to him whil e he w as on his bicycle. H e said that the informant asked him if he still t oo k d rugs, and the pe titioner replied that he did not. With regar d to the second offe nse, the pe titioner testified that the informant a sked him for some marijuana and he said that he did not have any marijuana in his possession. The petitioner sa id he was on his way to “re hab” and testified that he told the informant that he wa s “done” with drugs. He sa id that he did not have a n opportunity to get in the car w ith the office r and the informant.

T he petitioner w as convic ted of one count of selling coc aine in an amount greate r than .5 gr a ms ( a Cla ss B fe lon y) a ndon e c ou nt o f s e lli ng c oc a ine in an a mou nt l e ss tha n . 5 g rams ( a Cla ss C f e lon y) . H e was se nte nc e d to tw e lve ye ars on the Cla ss B fe lon y a ndsix ye ars on the Cla ss C felony. In his dire ct appe al, the petitioner r aised the sole issue of ineffe ct ive assistance of trial counsel, and this c ourt determined that the issue was waived beca use the pe titioner did not raise the issue in his motion for new trial. The petitioner then filed a petition f or post-conviction re lief. The trial court de nied re lief upon the inef fec tive assistance issue but gr anted a delaye d appea l with regar d to the issues of suffic iency a nd sentenc ing, which wer e raised in the motion for new t rial but not on direc t appea l. The petitioner then filed a notice of delaye d appea l w ith this court on April 24, 2007.

Ana lys is On appe al, the petitioner ha s raised thre e issues for our review. First, he conte nds that the
e vid e nc e is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o s up po rt his c on vic tio n. Se c on d, he arg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt imp ro pe rl y app lie d c on se c uti ve se nte nc ing . Fi na lly , h e c on te nd s tha t the po st- c on vic tio n er re d in den yin g p os tconviction re lief.-3-

I. Su fficie ncy of the Evidence

Fir st, the pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o s uppo rt

his c on vic tio ns

. Specifica lly, he argue s that the information admitted at trial wa s hear s ay and, theref ore, w as not
su ff ic ie nt to su pp ort his c on vic tio ns

. A gu ilt y ve rd ic t by the jury, app ro ve d by the tr ial cou rt , acc redits the testimony of t h e witnesses f or the State a nd resolves a ll conflicts in favor of the pr os e c uti on ’s the ory. A v e rd ic t of gu ilt re mov e s th e pr e su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e a ndre pla c e s it wi th
a pr e su mpt ion of

gu ilt , a ndthe de fe nd a nt h a s th e bu rd e n o f i llu str a tin g w hy th e evi dence is insufficient to support the j ury’s ve rdict. State v. Bland , 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . When a def endant c hallenges the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e, the standa rd for revie w by an a

ppellate c ourt is whether “ afte r considering the evidence in a li ght most favor able to the prosecution, any rational trier of fac t could have found the essential elements of the crime be yond a re asonable doubt.” Sta te
v
. Sm i th , 24 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Buggs , 995 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tenn. 19 99 )) ; se e als o J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979).

He re , t h e u n d e r c o v e r o f

f i c e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e a n d t h e c o n f

i d e n t i a l i n f

o r m a n t arr a ng e d to purcha se coc aine f

rom the petitioner on April 7, 2004. After they arrive d at the agr eed upon location, the petitioner rode up to the informant’s vehicle on his bic ycle and passed a bag of c ocaine to the office r. The of

fice r then ga ve $100 to the petitioner. At t ri al , t h e office r identified the petitioner as the pe rson who sold him the cocaine. An agent with the T.B.I. crime la b testified that the substance the offic er r ece ived on that date c ontained 1.9 grams of cocaine.

The o ff i ce r also testi fied that on May 13, 2004, the petitioner aga in sold him cocaine. He said that the petitioner a sked the off ice r an d the informant to mee t him at his residence and, af ter the y a rrive d, the de fe nd a nt g ot i nto the ir c ar. Th e of

fi c e r t e sti fi e d th a t th e peti tio ne r g a ve the m a small bag of whit e powder, which w as later determined to contain 0.4 gra ms of cocaine. Both sales of coc aine we re r ecor ded on hidden video and audio equipment contained in the ve hicle drive n by the inf orma nt.

Our re view re flec ts that the evidenc e pre sented at trial was suff icient t o s u p p o rt the petitioner’s c onvictions of selling coca ine. The petitioner is not entitl ed to any r elief on this issue.

II. Co nse c ut iveSe nt e nc ing

Ne xt, the pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t he wa s se nte nc e d impr op e rl y whe n the tr ia l c ou rt or de re d h is sentenc es t o run consecutively t o his previous convictions. When the re is a c hallenge to the le ngth, range , or manne r of se rvice of a se ntence , this court must conduct a de novo revie w of the r ecor d with a presumption that the determinations made by the trial court are corr ect. T

. C

. A. § 4 0 -35- 40 1 (d ) (2 0 0 3). This presumption is “conditioned upon the a ffirmative showing in the rec ord that the t rial court considere d the s entenc ing principles and all rele vant facts and circumstance s.” Sta te v. Ashby , 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991) . “The burden of showing that the sentenc e is improper is upon the appellant.” Id. In the event the r ecor d fails to demonstrate the require d consideration by the trial court, review of the sente nce is pure ly de novo

. Id. In conducting a de novo re vie w, thi s court must consider:-4-

1) The e vidence , if any, re ceive d at the trial a nd sentenc ing hearing; 2) Th e pr e se nte nc e re po rt ; 3) Th e princ ipl e s o f s e nte nc ing a ndarg ume nts a s to se nte nc ing a lte rn a tiv e s; 4) The nature a nd char acte ristics of the criminal conduct involved; 5) Evidence and information offer ed by the parties on enhanc ement and mitigating fac tors in §§ 40-35-113 and 40- 35-114; and 6) An y s ta te me nt the [p e ti ti on er] w ish e s to make in the[p e tit ion e r’ s] ow n b e ha lf about sentenc ing.

T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 21 0 ( 20 03 ); see also Ashby , 823 S.W.2d at 168.

Consecutive sente nces ma y be orde red if the court finds by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that:

1 ) T h e [p e ti ti o n e r ] is a p r o f e s s io n a l c r im in a l w h o h a s kn o w in g ly d e v o te d the [petit ioner’s] life to criminal ac ts as a major sour ce of livelihood;

2 ) The [petitioner] is an off ender whose re cord of

criminal ac tivity

is ex tensive;

3 ) T h e [ p e t i t i o n e r ] i s a d a n g e r o u s m e n t a l l y a b n o r m a l p e r s o ns o d e c l ar e d

b y a c omp e te nt p syc hiatr ist

wh o c on c lud e s a s a

re su lt o f a

n inve sti gati on pr ior

to
s e n t e n c i n g t h a t t h e [ p e t i t i o n e r ’ s ] c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t h a s b e e n c h ar a c t e r i z e d b y a patte rn of repetit ive or

c omp uls ive be havio r w ithhe e dle ss i nd if fe re nc e to
c on se qu e nc e s;

4 ) Th e [p e ti ti o n e r ] is a d an g e r o u s o f f e n d e r w h o s e b e h av io r in d ic a tes littl e or no reg ard f or human life, a

nd no hesitation about committing a crime in whic h the risk to human life is high; 5) The [petitioner] is convicted of two (2) or

more statu t o ry

offe nses involving sexual ab u s e o f

a mi n o r w it hc o n s id e r a ti o no f

th e a g g r av a ti n g c ir c u ms ta n c es arisingfrom the relationship betwee n the [ petitioner] and victim or victims, the time spa n of [petitioner’s] undetected se x ual ac tivity , the nature and scope of the sexual acts and the e x tent of the re sidual, phy sical and men t al d am age to the vic timor vic tim s;
6 ) The [petitioner] is sentenc ed for an off ense c ommitt ed while on pr obation; or

7 ) Th e [pe tit ion e r] i s se nte nc e d f or c ri min a l c on te mpt

. T.C.A. § 40-35-115( b) (2003) . The length of the sentenc e must be “justly deserved in re lation to the seriousness of the offe nse,” T.C.A. § 40-35-102( 1) (2003), and “no gr eate r than that de serve d” under the c ir c ums ta nc e s. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 10 3( 2) (2 00 3) ; see also State v . Lane , 3 S.W.3d 456, 460 (Tenn. 1999). Additionally, whether sentenc es ar e to be se rved c oncurr ently or consecutively i s a matter-5-

addre ssed to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Hastings , 25 S.W.3d 178, 181 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).

Our review r efle cts that the trial court was within its dis cre tion when it ordere d the petitioner’s sente nces to run c onsecut i vely. The pe titioner’s probation off icer testified during the sentenc ing hearing that the petitioner wa s under his probation supervision until Dec ember 21, 2012. The pe titioner acknow ledged that he had a history of felony drug c onvictions. His recor d included convictions for posse ssion of coca ine and marijuana with intent to deliver, as well as two convictions for sa le of c ocaine . The pe titioner was on probation at the time of the new law violations. He ha d been r elea sed fr om boot camp less than a month prior to t h e fi rs t drug transa ction with the underc over of

fice r.
The trial c ourt stated on the re cord that it considered the e vidence prese nted at the se ntencing he ari ng , th e pe tit ion e r’ s te sti mon y, the pr e se nte nc e re po rt , a ndthe pr oo f at tria l. T he tr ia l c ou rt a lso specific ally mentioned that the petitioner w as re lease d from boot ca mp on March 9, 2004, and committed these off

enses shortly there afte r on April 7 and May 13, 2004, r espec tively. The court clea rly stated that the pe titi o n er wa s selling drugs when he w as not in custody. The trial c ourt proper ly or dere d the sentenc es to be run conse cutively, and the pe titioner is not entitl ed to any r elief on this iss ue.
III. Ineffec tive Assistance of Counsel Finally , the petitioner ra ises the i ssue of whether the post-c onviction court er red in de nying post-conviction re lief based u p on the ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel. As pre viously noted, the po st- c on vic tio n c ourt

de nie d r e lief

up on thi s is su e be c a

us e it f ound that it ha d b e e n p re vio us ly deter mined on direc t appea l. Ag ain, it is noted that the petitioner ra ised the iss u e o f i neff ective assistance of counsel on direc t appea l, and a panel of this court concluded that the i ssue was waived based upon the failure to include the issue in the motion for new trial. Se e Sta te v . Care

yB. Ha y ne s, J r. , No. W2005-01184-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, A pr. 3, 2006).

I nit ia lly , w e are c onstra ine d to a dd re ss c on c e rn s r a ise d b y

a pr oc e dura l a sp e c t w hic h is highlig hted in this case involving a situation where a petitioner reque sts a delayed appe al and r aises post-convict i o n i s s u es i n the same pe tition. I t is clear that, ge nera lly , a dela y ed appe al may

be g rante d, pursuant to T ennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-30-113 and Te nnessee Supreme Court Rule 28 section 9, by

the filing of a post-c onviction action. Howe ver, this co u rt h as re ache d differ ing r esults on the corr ect pr ocedur e which a post-convic tion court should employ with reg ard to the handling of the post-c onviction issues raised if a delayed appea l is gra nted. In Gi bs on v . S

tate , 7 S.W .3d 47, 50 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), proce dural guidelines wer e esta blished which provided that when a

delay ed appea l was g rante d, the post-conviction cour t should dism iss without prejudice the re ma ini ngpo st- c on vic tio n a lle g a tio n wh ile the de lay e d a pp e a l a c tio n wa s pe nd ing . T he pr e mis e of thi s h old ingwa s th a t, u

nle ss t he po st- c on vic tio n p ro c e e din g s w e re dis mis se d, the pe tit ion e r wo uld be pre cluded f

rom raisingany

resulting ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel issues which ar ose fr om the handling of the de lay ed appe al.-6-

Howeve r, we are cog nizant that in 2002, our supreme cour t amended Rule 28 of

the Tenne ssee Rules of the Supreme Court, which g overns de lay ed appe als. SeeTenn. R. Sup. Ct. 28, § 9 (D ); S ta t e v

. B i l l

yJ a c k s o n C o f fe lt , No

. M 2005-01723-CCA-DA C-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 8 , 2 0 0 6 ). S ec t i o n9 o f t h e r u l e s p ec i fi ca l l y

p ro v i d es th at p o s t -c o n v i ct i o np ro ce ed i n gs are to be stay ed unti l t h e fi n al dispositi on of a de lay ed appe al when a delayed appe al is g rante d pursuant to Rule 11 of the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Procedur e. T en n

. R

. S up. Ct. 28, § 9( D) (1 )( b) (i ), §9 (D )( 2) (b )( i)

. F ur the r, the ru le sp e c if

ic a lly pr ov ide s th a t w he n a

pe tit ion e r a

pp e a ls a post-convic tion court’s denia l of a de lay ed appe al pursuant to Rule 3 of the T ennes s ee Ru l es of Appellate Proc edure , this court shall “re solve this issue alo n g wi t h any other issues ra ised in the po st- c on vic tio n a

pp e a l;” sh ou ld t

his c ourt “ g ra nt a de lay e d a pp e a l, t he po st- c on vic tio n a

pp e a l sh a ll not be stay ed.” T enn. R. Sup. Ct. 28, § 9(D)(2)( a).

Ho we ve r, despi te Ru le 28 ’s sp e c if ic pr ov isi on s r e g ard ingthe a bo ve sit uatio ns , th e ru le is
s il e nt w it h r e g a r d to whether

the post-conviction proc eeding s should be stay ed, dismissed, or dec ided when a trial court g rants a Rule 3 de lay ed appe al. Multiple panels of this c ourt have conclude d that the abse nce of the stay provision “ appar ently contemplates that the collater al-attack issues will be adjudicate d alongwith the question of the propri et y o f a d elayed appe al.” State v. Be n Thomas Dowlen , No

. M2 00 3- 00 50 8- CCA -R 3- CD (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. , a t Na sh vil le , July 20 , 2 00 4) ; se e als o State v. Jarvis Antonio Cl emmons , N os . M 20 07 -0 27 93 -C CA -R 3- CD , M 20 07 -0 27 91 -C CA -R 3- PC (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. , a t Na sh vil le , D e c . 4 , 2 00 8) ; Ha rv e yW e bs te r v . S tate , No. M20060-00886-CCAR3- PC ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. , at N a sh vil le , Jun e 27 , 2 00 7) ; Sta te v . B ill yJ ac k so n Co ffe lt , No. M2005- 01723-CCA-DAC-CD. In these c ases, pa nels of this court sawfit to address the me ri ts of a pe tit ion e r’ s a

pp e a l of a de nia l of po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f whe n a po st- c on vic tio n

c o u r t h a d d e nie d p os tconviction relief but grante d a Rule 3 dela y ed appe al. Id . I n Dowlen , the cour t concluded that our
s u p re m e c o u rt h ads an ct i o n edt h e p roce dure. S ta te v

. B e n Th o mas Dowlen , No. M2003-00508-CCAR3-CD.

No ne the le ss, de sp ite thi s p re c e de nt f or a llo wi ng bo th a pos t- c on vic tio n c ourt , a s w e ll a s th is court, to addr ess post-conviction issues, w e m u s t note the possible re sulting unfa irness to a petitioner, who could be precluded from challeng ing the eff ectivene ss of hi s appellate counsel if the post-conviction petit ion is ruled upon prior to the de lay ed appe al. We find the re asoning in Gibson quite persua sive with rega rd to the employ ment of a diff

ere nt proce dure. The court in Gibson provided the f

ollowing we ll-rea soned rationale for sta ying post-c onviction proce ed i n gs until t he
c on c lus ion

of the de lay e d a

pp e a l: A petitioner for

post-convictio n relief

, complaining of the orig inal conviction and sent en ce, ma

y not be maintained while a direc t appea l of the same c onviction and sentenc e is beingprosec uted. B eca use a post-c onviction p et i t i o n m ay not be filed until the final judgme nt of the highe st court has be en ente red, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202, the . . . pe tition for post-conviction relief was fil ed p rematurely

and should ha ve been dismiss ed acc ording ly

. Moreove r, if

. . . the ultimate holding [on delay ed appe al] is favorable to the a ppellant, this c ourt’s time ha s been wasted on an appellate [post -convic tion] issue which is rende red moot.-7-

. . . . [Moreover, w]e a

re c og nizant of the statutory provision which contemplate s the filing of only one petiti on for post-conviction relief from a single judg ment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(c)

. This statute provides that if a petition has bee n resolved on its merits, a subsequent petition must be summarily dismiss ed. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-202( c); 40-30- 206(b).

Gibson , 7 S.W .3d at 50 (some c itations omi tted).

Under the fa cts of the instant ca se, it appea rs that th e i nitial appellate c ounsel rende red defic ient perf

ormanc e to the poi nt of arguably pree mpting any

revie w of trial or

appellate counsel’s eff ectivene ss. All defenda

nts are guara

nteed e ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel at trial and on first tier
re v i ew

. I n o u r v i ew , t h e p re fe rab l e p ro ce d ure i s fo r th e p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n co urt t o s t ay an y fi n d i n gs as to ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel claims and a llow them to proce ed only afte r the re sults of the delay ed appe al ar e known.

We are nonetheless bound by the Rules of our supreme c ourt and guided by prior dec isions of this court. As such, we conclude that the post-conviction court in this case did have jurisdiction to rule upon the mer its of the petiti o n er ’s post-conviction issue and that, a ccor dingly , we have jur isd ic tio n to re vie w the me ri ts o f t hat de c isi on . Re vie w of the r e c or d r e ve a ls t hat th e po stconviction cour

t corre ctly deter mined that the issue was pr eviously deter mined by this court’s ruling on direc t appea l that the issue was waived. I ssues which have been pr eviously deter mined may

not be ra ise d through a

po st- c on vic tio n c ha lle ng e . T .C. A. § 4 0- 30 -1 06 (h ) ( 20 06 ). Thus , th e po stconviction cour

t’s ruling was c orre ct, and the pe titioner is not entitl ed to re lief.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed o n th e fo re go ing a ndthe re c or d a s a wh ole , w e a ff

ir m th e jud gme nt f

ro m th e po stconviction court

___________________________________ JOHN EVE RETT WILL IAMS, JUDGE