### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 6, 200 9

RON ALD YA TES v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal from t he Criminal Court for Shelb y County No. 01-08883-84 W. Ot is Higgs, Jr., Jud ge

No. W2008-02067-C CA-R 3-PC - Filed Dece mber 3, 2009

Th e pe tit ion e r, Ron a ld Y a te s, a pp e a ls the po st- c on vic tio n c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of his pe tit ion

fo r p os tc on vic tio n r e lie f, a rguin g that di smiss al w a s im pr op e r b e c a

us e the c ourt

did no t make sp e c if

ic fi nd ing s o r c on du c t an ev ide nti a ry he ari ng

. He a dd iti on a lly argue s th a t if

the c ourt ’s int e nt w a s to dis mis s o n g ro un ds tha

t th e iss ue of

ine ff e c ti ve ass istanc e of

c ouns e l ha d b e e n p re vio us ly d et er m i ned, such a ction was in er ror be cause he had dif

fer ent trial and a

ppellate c ounsel. After revie w, we c onclude that the post-c onviction court er red in dis m i s s i n g the petition without

c on du c tin g an ev ide nti ary he ari ng a s to the pe tit ion e r’ s cla im of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of a pp e llate

c ouns e l. T he re fo re , w e re ve rs e the dis mis sa l and re mand fo r pr oc e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththe Pos tCon vic tio n Pr oc e dure Ac t.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Cr im ina l C our t R e ve r se d and Rem anded

A LA N E. G LE NN , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, i n which D. K EL LY T HOMAS , J R . and C AM I LLE R. M C M ULLEN , JJ., joined.

Eran Ju lia n ( on app e a l) a ndByr on W ins e tt ( a t he ari ng ), Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Ron a ld Y a te s.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr
., Attorne y G e ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Le sli e E. Pr ic e , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney Ge nera l; and David Zak and Anita Spinetta, Assistant District Attorneys Ge nera l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F AC TS

The pe titioner was co nvicted by a Shelby

County Criminal Court jury

of first deg ree preme ditated murder

and attempted f

irst deg ree murder, a

nd the t rial cour

t sentence d him to li fe plus twenty -three y ear s. The petitioner a ppeale d to this court, raising numerous issues, including ineffe ctive assistanc e of tria l counsel. State v. Ronald Yate s, No. W2003-02251-CCA- R3

- CD , 2004-2-

WL 2821224 (Tenn. Crim. App. De c. 8, 2004). This c ourt modified the petit ioner’s se ntence for

a tte mpt e d f

ir st d e g re e mur de r t o tw e nty y e ars and

a ff ir me d th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

in a ll other re g ards. I d. at *1.

The pe titioner filed a pr o s e pe tit ion for po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f o n July 12 , 2 00 5. I n h is pe tit ion
, he a sse rt e d that he re c e ive d the ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l a t tr ia l an d o n ap pe a l, raising ev identiary

issues and cha lleng ing his sente nce. A fter the appointment of counse l, the petitioner, throug h counsel, filed an amended petiti on for post-c onviction relief on Ma y 24, 2007. On that s ame day
, a hear ingwa s h e ld, duri ngwh ic h th e State a sse rt e d th a t it wa s n ot p re pa

re d to addre ss cer

tain issues raised in the petitioner’s amende d petition be cause it had been f iled only that day . The State a lso arg ued that the pe titioner was pre cluded f rom raising the i neff

ective a ssistance of trial counsel claim beca use it ha d alre ady been litigated at the motion for new trial and on dire ct appea l. The cour

t observed, “ [T] he Court ag ree s with you, though, that effe ctively eliminate[s] or that’s the petition for post-c onviction.” The State r esponded, “Sir, Idon’t think it precludes he aring

a lle g a tio ns of

ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of a pp e llate c ouns e l.” Th e c ourt re se t the he ari ng fo r the State to respond to one of the petitioner’s newly raised issues of ineff ective a ssistance of g ener al sessions counsel.

The sec ond hear ing w as held on July 20, 2007, at which the State aga i n argued that the petitioner’s c laim of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel had a lrea dy been litig ated a

nd should theref

ore be dismissed. The petitioner’ s counsel a g ree d that cer tain ineffe ctive assistanc e cla ims had been previously

raised and ruled on at t he mot ion for new t rial and on a ppeal. How ever , he said that the petitioner wa s raising some “fa ctually distinct issues” reg arding the ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel and also raising the issue of ineff ective a ssistance of a

ppellate c ounsel. The post-c onviction court too k th e ma tte r u

nd e r a dv ise me nt.

On Aug ust 5, 2008, the State filed a motion to dismiss the petit ion for post-convic tion relief, stating, “The St ate of Tenne ssee moves the C ourt to dismiss the Petition for Post C onviction Relief here tofore f

iled in this cause by

the pe titioner, and say s: The petition was hea rd base d on the [petit ioner’s] cla i m of ineff ective c ounsel. This claim is without merit and thus is denied.” That

same da y , th e c ourt

e nte re d a n o rd e r g ra

nti ngthe State ’s mot ion . T he or de r w a s a s f oll ow s:

This cause came to be hea rd upon t he Petition for Post-Conviction R elief fi le d b y Peti ti on er and the Re sp on se of the State of

Te nn e sse e fr om a ll o f w hic h it appea rs that the [petitioner] was found g uilty [of] M1D. This Petiti on was he ard. There fore the State’s re quest for dismissal of the Petition shall be g rante d.

The pe titioner appea led.

AN AL YSI S-3-

The pe titioner argues that the post-c onviction court er red in dism issing his petition without making specific finding s of fact and conclusions of law or conducting an evide ntiary hear ing. H e also argues that i f i t wa s the court’ s intent to dism iss on gr ounds that the ineff ective a ssistance of counsel c laim had been previously deter mined, such action was e rror beca use he ha d differ ent trial and appe llate counse l. The State ag ree s that the post-convict i o n co u rt improperly dismiss ed the petition without a heari n g. W e re v i ew the post-c onviction court’s dismissal of the petition, as an issue of law, de novo on the re cord w ithout a presumption of corr ectne ss. See B urnett v. State, 92 S.W .3d 403, 406 (Tenn. 2002)

.

Th e Pos t- Con vic tio n Pr oc e dure Ac t pr ov ide s in pe rt ine nt p art :
(f) Upon re ceipt of a petition in proper form, or upon r ece ipt of an ame nded pe tit ion , th e c ourt

sh a ll e xami ne the a lle g a tio ns of f a c t in the pe tit ion . I f t

he fa c ts

a lle g e d, take n a s tr

ue , f a il t o s ho w that th e pe tit ion e r i s e nti tle d to re lie f o r f a il t o sho w t hat the cla ims for relief have not be en wa ived or pre viously deter mined, the petition shall be dismis sed. The or der of d i s m issal shall set forth the cour t’s conclusions of law

.

. . . . (h) A g round for

relief is pr ev i ously

deter mined if a c ourt of compe tent jur i s d i c t i o n h a s r

u l e d o n t h e m e r i t s a f

t e r a f u l l an d f a i r h e ar i n g

. A f

u l l a ndfa ir hear ing ha s occur

red w here the petitioner is a f forde d the opportunity

to call witnesses

and oth e rw ise pr e se nt e vid e nc e , r e g ardles s of whe the r t he pe tit ion e r a c tua lly introduced a

ny evidenc e.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-106(f ), (h) (2006).

Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court Rul e 28 , § 6( B )( 4) (c ) p ro vid e s:

I n th e e ve nt the c ourt c on c lud e s tha t dismi ssa l is a pp ro pr ia te , th e c ourt

sh a ll enter an order specify

ing its finding s of fac t a

nd conclusions of law in support of the de te rm inatio n that the pe tit ion do e s no t state a c olo ra ble c la im. Th e or de r s ha ll s ta te specific ally

the fa cts which support dismiss al i ncluding whether the petition is barre d by the statute of limitation, was filed in a court without jurisdiction, or whe ther the petition fails to specify the grounds for relief , the fa cts supporting those g rounds, or fails to establish that the claim(s) have not be en wa ived or pre viously deter mined.

Up on re vie w, we c on c lud e that a re mand is n e c e ssa

ry . In h is o ri g ina l and

a me nd e d p e tit ion s, the petitioner pre sented evidentiar y , sentenc ing, and ineffe ctive assistance of counsel c laims. The post-conviction cour

t dismi ssed, stating , “This Petition was hear d. There fore the State’s re quest for dismiss al of the Petit ion shall be g rante d.” I t appea rs that the post-convic tion court may have-4-

int e nd e d to di smi ss a

t le a st the ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la ims a s h a vin g be e n p re vio us ly de te rm ine d. With re g ard to the pe tit ion e r’ s c la im o f i ne ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of tr ia l c ouns e l, w e no te that claim was pr eviously deter mined by this court on direc t ap p ea l and cannot be re litigated in a post-conviction proc eeding , even though the petitioner m ay not have made the same alleg ations on direc t appea l that he now make s in his post-conviction petition. S ee Jay Homer Chambe rs v. State, No. E2004-01862- CCA-R3-PC, 2005 W L2346974, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. S ept. 26, 2005); J ohn Earl Sc a le s v . St a te , N o. M2 00 3- 01 75 3- CCA -R 3- PC, 2 00 4 WL 15 62 54 2, a t ** 6- 7 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. J uly 13, 2004), per

m. to appeal de nied (Te nn. Nov. 8, 2004); Russell L ane O verby v. State, No. W20 01 -0 12 47 -C CA -R 3- PC, 2 00 2 WL 81 82 50 , a

t *2 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. Apr . 2 6, 20 02 ), pe rm . to appea l denied (Te nn. Sept. 9, 2002).

Howeve r, as noted above, in his post-conviction petition, the petitioner pre sented the additional clai m that appellate c ounsel was inef fec tive. This court has pr eviously held that “alleg ations reg ardingthe ineff ectivene ss of appellate counsel, when trial and a ppellate c ounsel are differ ent, ar e not waive d under the Post-Convi ction Act when those alleg ations are not presente d on direct ap peal.” J ohn Earl Sca les v. State, No. M2001-00310-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 1949697, at *2 (T e nn . Crim . App . Aug . 23, 20 02 ) (c iti ng Ke nd ri c ks v. State , 13 S.W.3 d 401 , 405 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 1999)). Apetitioner does not wa ive consider ation of a c laim of i n ef fective assistance of appellate counsel e ven thoug h he ra ised a c laim of ineff ective a ssistance of trial counsel on dire ct appea l. See, e.g., L ara iel Wint on v. State, No. E2006-02392-CCA-R3-PC
, 2007 WL 2438112, at * 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug . 29, 2007); Russell L ane O verby , 2002 WL 818250, at *2.

We have r eviewe d the orig inal and ame nded petitions, as well as this court’s opinion on direc t appea l, and w e d o n o t see that any issues reg ardingappellate counsel’s pe rfor mance wer e

a dd re sse d o n d ir e c t a

pp e a l. M or e ov e r, the po st- c on vic tio n c ourt ’s c ur so ry dis mis sa l is ina de qu a te under Te nnessee Supreme Court Rule 28, § 6(B )(4) (c) for this court to dete rmine whe ther dismissal of the petiti oner’ s other claims was appropriate

. On re mand, we instruc t the post-conviction cour t to revisit the claims in the petit ioner’s origina l and amended petiti ons. I f the post-c onviction court finds that summary

dismiss al is appropr iate as to a ny of the claims, the court shall re nder a n order in conformity

with Tennesse e Supreme Court Rule 28, § 6(B) (4)( c) a nd the Post-Conviction Procedur e Act. As to a

ny colora ble claims prese nted by the petitioner, including th e i n ef fe ctive assistance of appe llate counse l, the post-conviction c o u rt shall conduct a n evidentiar

y hear ing at wh ic h th e pe tit ion e r i s a

ble to p re se nt e vid e nc e in s up po rt of his c la ims

.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed o nth e f

o r e g o in g a

u th o r it ie s an d

r e a s o n in g , w e r e v e r s e th e p o s t- c o n v ic ti o nc o u rt’ s dismiss al of the pet i t i o n and re mand for pr ocee dings in a ccor dance with the Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t.

___________________________________ ALAN E. G LENN, JUD GE