### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 16 , 200 5

JOSEP H HOU GH v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham blen Coun ty

No. 03CR139 Lynn W. Brow n, Jud ge

No. E2004-02299-CC A-R3- P C - F iled Dece m ber 1, 2005

Pe tit ion e r, Jose ph Ho ug h, app e a ls f ro m th e po st -c on vic tio n c ou rt ’s su mma ry dis mis sa l of

his pr o
se petition for post-conviction relief beca use the pe tition di d not include a pr oper ve rification under oath

. A f te r a th o r o u g h r e v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c ir c u ms tan c e s in th is c a s e w arr ant allowing Petitioner the opportunity to amend his petition pursuant to Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 40- 30-106(d) . The judg ment of the trial c ourt is reve rsed a nd the ca se re manded fo r further pr oc e e din g s. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt R ever sed and Rem anded

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d t h e o p i n i o n of the c ourt, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

J oseph Houg h, Mountain City , Tenne ssee, pro s e

.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; John H. B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; C. Be rkele y Be ll, J r., District Attorney Ge n er al, and Vic tor Vaug hn, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F oll ow ing a

jury tr ia l, Pet iti on e r wa s c on vic te d o f o ne c ou nt o f d e liv e ri ng 0. 5 g rams o r l e ss of c oc a ine , a

Cla ss C fe lon y , a ndon e c ou nt of de liv e ri ng 0. 5 o r m or e g rams o f c oc a ine , a Cla ss B felony . The trial c ourt sentenc ed Petitioner as a Rang e I I , Multipl e offe nder, to eig ht y ear s for the Class C felony

and fifte en y ear s for the Class B fe lony . The trial c ourt order ed Petitioner to serve his se nte nc e s c on se c uti ve ly fo r an e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

tw e nty -thr e e y e ars

. On the morning of t rial, P etitioner filed a mot ion reque sting that he be permitted to procee d pro s e , and his motion was granted af ter a hearing on the matter. Counsel, howe ver, w as appointed to assist P etitioner on appe al. Pet i t i o n er ’s appointed appe llate counse l arg ued that the tria l court-2-

err ed in allowing Petitioner to repre sent himself and in its sentencing determinations. State v. Jose ph Antonio Hough , No. E2000-02728- CCA-R3 -C D, 2 0 02 WL 1483203, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, J uly

11, 2002), perm. to appeal de nied (Tenn. D ec

. 9 , 2 0 0 2). This Court aff irmed Petitioner’s convictions and se ntence s. Id . at *10.
Petitioner timelyfiled a pro se petition for post-conviction relief on June 6, 2003, alleg ing ineffe ctive assistance of appe llate counse l and cha lleng ing va rious alleg ed trial e rror s. The petition did not include any alleg ations of fact i n support of hi s g rounds for r elief. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-104( e). Furthermor e, althoug h Petitioner signe d the petition, it does not r efle ct that he wa s under oath when he did so. Id

. On May 3, 2004, Petitioner filed a pro s e amendment to his petition for post-c onviction relief w hich outlined the fa ctual alleg ations supportin g his gr ounds for re lief. The a mendment was a lso not verified unde r oath. On A ugu st 16, 2004, the post-conviction court conclude d that the petit ion failed to include the requisite verification under oath and thus the pe tition prese nted no verified fa cts which would e ntit l e P et i t i o ner to re lief. The post-c onviction court dismiss ed the pe tition wit hout conducting an evide ntiary hearing, and Petitioner filed a notice of appea l on September 17, 2004.

Petitioner filed a “motion to reope n post-conviction petition” on Octobe r 7, 2004, alleg ing ineffe ctive assistanc e of h i s appellate counsel a nd arg uing that his sentence w as in violation of Blakely v. W

ashington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). This motion was verified under oath. As to Petiti oner’ s ineffe ctive assistanc e cla ims, the post-conviction court on Apri l 22, 2005, dis mis se d Pe tit ion e r’ s mo tio n a s f ile d b e y on d th e on e -y e ar s ta tut e of lim itatio ns fo r f

ili ng po stconviction petitions. See Te nn . Code An n. § 4 0- 30 -1 02 (a ). As fo r P e tit ion e r’ s Bl ake ly claims, the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt

fo un d th a t Blakely does not cre ate a new r ule of c onstitut ional law an d thus does not aff

ord a g round upon which a post-conviction petition may be reopene d. See id . § 40-30- 11 7( a )( 1) ; State v. Gome z , 163 S.W .3d 632, 650-51 (Tenn. 2005). Petitioner appea led the dismissal of his motion to reopen. This Court dismis sed Petitioner’s application for permission to appea l on May 20, 2005 beca

use the motion to reopen w as filed during the p endenc y of Petitioner’s appe al from the de nial of the same petition for post-conviction re lief that Petitioner soug ht to reopen.
The State initially

arg ues that Petitioner’s appe al from the dismissal of hi s orig inal petition for post-c onv iction relief should be dismiss ed bec ause the notice of a ppeal wa s untimelyfiled. Petitioner’s notice of a

ppeal wa s filed on September 17, 2004, instead of Septem b er 15, 2004, as require d by

Rule 4 of the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Procedur e. Rule 4 provides that a notice of

app e a l sh ou ld b e fi le d wi thi n thi rt y da y s a ft e r e ntry of the jud g me nt fr om w hic h a n a pp e a l is so ug ht. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) . I n h i s re ply brief, Petitioner stre nuously arg ues that he is entitled to the “prison mailbox rule,” and that he timely mailed his notice of appea l from the prison fa cilities. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 49(c). B e that as it may , the Rules of Appellate Procedur e provide that in criminal

case s, “the ‘notice of appea l’ document is not jurisdictional and the filing of such document may be

wa ive d in the int e re st o f j us tic e .” Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 4( a ). Th e re fo re , in the int e re st o f j us tic e , w e wi ll waive the thirty -day

filing r equire ment and re view the merits of the appea l. Id.-3-

Petitioner failed to verify

his pe tition and a mended pe tition under oath. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-104( e). The post-conviction court, in dism issing Petitioner’s pe tition wit hout a ne v id entiary hearing, found that the alleg ations in the petition we re not verified unde r oath, a nd acc ording ly , the petition did not c ontain any fac tual alleg ations supporting Petitioner’ s claim for r elief. Se e id . § 40- 30-106(d)

.
Fa i l ure to state a

fac tual basis for the g rounds alleg ed in the petition will result in the summary dismiss al of a

petition for post-conviction re lief. Id

. As we discusse d in Hutcherson v

. Sta te , 75 S.W .3d 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) , [i ]t is imperative that fa ctual alleg ations be made and that the petition be verified as true und er o at h

. Howeve r, re lative to defic iencies in the f actual basis for a petitioner’s c laim, a trial court has the discre tion to enter an or der n o t i fy ing the petitioner that an a mended pe tition comply ing w ith the fac tual alleg ati o nr e q u ire me nt must be filed within fifteen day s or the pe tition would t hen be dismissed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 206(d). Also, Rule 28, § 6 (B )( 4 )( b ), Tenn. S. Ct. R., provides that a trial c ourt must not dis miss a p ro se petition “for f ailure to follow the presc ri be d f

orm un til the c ou rt

ha s g ive n p e tit ion e r a

re a so na ble op po rtun ity

to amend the pe tition wit h the assistance of counse l.”

Hutcherson , 75 S. W.3 d at 93 1; se e als o Ke nn e th R . G rif fin v . S tat e , N o. E2 00 1- 01 93 2- CCA -R 3- PC, 2002 WL 236697 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knox ville, Feb. 19, 2002) , no perm. to appeal filed

.
I t does not appea

r fr om the rec ord that the post-c onviction co urt g ave Petitioner a n opportunity to a me n d h is p e ti ti o n to in c lu d e a v e r if ic a ti o n u n d e r

o a th , a r e q u ir e me n t P e ti ti o n er appar ently

attem p t ed t o co m p ly

with in his m otion to reopen. See H utcherson , 75 S.W .3d at 931 (re versing the post-conviction’s dismissal of the petition and rema nding the case to give Petitioner

a n o pp ortun ity

to ame nd his pe tit ion to inc lud e a pr op e r ve ri fi c a tio n u nd e r o a th) ; se e als o Ke nn e th R. Gr iff in , 2 00 2 WL

23 66 97 , at *3

. Th e Sta te arg ue s, ho we ve r, that Hutcherson n o t wi t h s t an d i n g, the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt pr op e rl y dis mis se d Pe tit ion e r’ s pe tit ion be c a us e the pe tit ion fails to s ta te a g round upon which r elief ma y be g rante d. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-106(f ).

A p e ti ti o n f

o r p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n r e li e f s h a ll b e d is mi s s e d w ith o u t an e v id e n ti ar y h e ar in g “ [i ]f the fa cts alleg ed, take n as true, f ail to show that the petitioner is e ntitled to relief or fa il to show that the claims for r elief ha ve not bee n waived or previously

determined.” Id

. § 40 -3 0- 10 6( f)

. Th e Sta te arg ues that Petitioner’s g rounds for r elief essentially revolve around his conte ntion that the trial court

err ed in allow in g Pe ti ti o n e r to r e p r e s e n t h im s e lf

a t t r ia l, w h ic h w a s th e is s u e p r e s e n te d o n d ir e ct appea l. Furthe r, the State c ontends that Petitioner’s alleg ations of various error s that occur red at trial do no t pr e se nt a

g ro un d f or re lie f u nd e r the Pos t- Con vic tio n Pr oc e du re Ac t.

“ A g ro un d f

or re lie f i s w a ive d if

th e petitio ne r p e rs on a lly or thr ou g h a n atto rn e y

faile d to prese nt it for determination in any proce eding befor e a court of competent jurisdiction i n which the g round could ha ve bee n prese nted,” a nd “[a] ground f or re lief is previously determined if a c ourt of-4-

competent jurisdiction has ruled on the merits af ter a full and fa ir hea

ring .” Id . §§ 40-30-106( g ) and (h).

Al tho ug h at ti me s d if fi c ult to d e cip her, the pe tit ion a lle g e s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d ( 1) in fi nd ing him

c omp e te nt to sta ndtr ia l, ( 2) in r e fu sin g to a llo w Pe tit ion e r t o p re se nt w itn e sse s to chal le n g eth eM id d le

T e n n e s s e eM ental He alth I nstitut e’s c ompetency evaluation, (3) in not allowing him to c a ll w itn e sse s w ho wo uldsu pp ort hi s e ntr apme nt, ins a nit y a ndne c e ssi ty

de fe ns e s, a nd(4 ) i n not instr u cti ng the jury

on such def

enses. Petitioner a lso contends that the State er red in not pr ov idi ng him

wi th a co py

of the I ns titute ’s c omp e te nc y e va luatio n u nti l sh ortly

be fo re tr ia l. It is well established that a

petitioner may not raise a n issue in a post-conviction petition that could have been r aised on dire ct appe al, such a s the various tr i al er rors a lleg ed by Petitioner in his petiti on, whether committed by

the State or the tria l court. State v. Townes , 56 S.W. 3d 30 , 35 (T e nn . Crim. App. 2000), o v e r r u le d

in p a r t o n o th e r

g ro unds by St at e v . Te rry , 118 S.W .3d 355, 359 (Tenn. 20 01 ). Th e op po rtun ity to raise a n iss ue on app e a l c ou ple d w ith the failu re to d o s o “ c on sti tut e s a waiver of the issue pursua nt to Code se ction 40-30-[1]06(g) f or purpose s of a post-c onviction relief proce eding .” Id. at 36.

I n a dd iti on , Pe tit ion e r a lle g e s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in a llo wi ng him to re pr e se nt h ims e lf at trial. This issue was a ddresse d on direc t appea l and is, theref ore, w aived unde r Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-30-106( h). See Joseph Antonio Hough , 2002 WL 1483203, at *5.
To the extent, however , that Petitioner raises issues c oncerning the ineffe ctive assistanc e of his appellate c ounsel, such i s s u es m ay provide a g round for

relief under the Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-103. Among Petitioner’s numerous c laims for re lief, he c on te nd s th a t hi s a

pp e llate c ou ns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e fo r fa ili ng to ap pe a l the tr ia l cou rt ’s failu re to ins truc t th e jury

on the de fe ns e s of ne c e ssi ty a nd ins a nit y

. I n c on sid e ri ng wh e the r a pe tit ion pr e se nts a color able c laim for re lief, the post -c o n v i cti on court is to take the f acts a s true. Se e id . § 40-30- 106(f) . A “c olorable c laim” is one “that, if taken a s true, in the light most fa vorable to petitioner, would entitle petitioner to relief under the Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t.” Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 28 § 2(H). Aclaim of inef

fec tiveness of appellate counsel that violates a petitioner’s Six th Amendment rig ht to counsel may

provide the ba sis for a c olorable c laim for post-convic tion relief. Se e Bu rn e tt
v . S tat e , 92 S.W .3d 403, 408 (Tenn. 2002)

.
Ba sed upon the for eg oing c ircumstance s, we re verse the post-conviction court’s dismis s al of the pe tition, and remand to the post-conviction court to allow P etitioner the opportunity to amend his petition t o comply with the statutory require ments for filing petitions for post-conviction re lief. We note that in his original pe tition, P etitioner specific ally reque sted the court not to appoint counsel to as s i s t h i m. On rema nd, the trial court should inqui re if the status is the same. I f not, counsel should be appointed t o as s i s t P eti tioner in the ame ndment proce ss if, in fact, he is found to be ind ig e nt.-5- CO NC LU SION

For the re asons stated he rein, the judg ment o f th ep o s t- c o n v ic ti o nc o u r

t s u mm arily

dismiss ing t h e p et i t i o n fo r p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n re l i ef i s re v er s ed , an d t h i s ca s e i s re m an d ed fo r f u rt h erp ro ce ed i n gs consistent with this opi nion.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE