Opinion ID: 475063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Appellee Jack Drinnon was arrested along with codefendant, Larry Minor, for the shotgun slaying of Roger Umberger. One month prior to the fatal shooting, Drinnon's wife filed for divorce and lived with the decedent Umberger. Drinnon had unsuccessfully attempted reconciliations and had also threatened on several occasions to kill Umberger. A few days prior to the shooting, Drinnon warned his wife that her living arrangement could not continue and that if she continued to live with Umberger, he would kill one of them. 3 On the night of the slaying, October 8, 1974, Drinnon visited codefendant Minor. Drinnon gave Minor fourteen .22 caliber cartridges, told him to load Drinnon's automatic rifle, and said that he was going to kill Umberger. The men then drove around in Drinnon's car drinking beer. After proceeding to Umberger's home and finding no one there, they left and returned several hours later. This time they found Drinnon's wife and Umberger getting out of a truck. Drinnon attempted to talk to his estranged wife. When Umberger tried to enter the house, Drinnon fired a number of shots, one bullet striking Umberger in the head, fatally wounding him. 4 Drinnon and Minor then returned to Minor's home where Drinnon gave his rifle to Mr. McQueen, with whom Minor resided, and stated he had shot the son-of-a-bitch. Drinnon returned to the scene of the shooting and later called a hospital to see if Umberger had been admitted, but apparently thought he had killed him. In his postarrest statement, however, Drinnon claimed that Minor had fired the shots and that he did not know that anyone had been shot. 5 Drinnon was convicted of second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Drinnon's conviction and sentence. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion sets out that Drinnon challenged first the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, but the court overruled this assignment finding all the elements of second degree murder are found in the evidence. Drinnon also made numerous other assignments of error in his direct appeal apparently unsupported by any proposition of law or fact and not sustained by any citation of authority contrary to court rules. The court nevertheless considered these unbriefed assignments, but found them meritless, including the claim of error in denying a request for continuance, the claim of unfairness in granting codefendant Minor's motion for severance, who was then permitted to testify against Drinnon in return for a guilty plea. The court of criminal appeals ruled that the jury was aware of these circumstances and had ample opportunity to consider his [Minor's] credibility. The court also overruled Drinnon's unspecified contentions about the jury instructions as given and his claim that the death penalty statute was unconstitutional. 1 6 On March 14, 1977, Drinnon filed pro se a petition for post conviction relief in state court. Apparently Drinnon raised ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis for relief, citing his ( attorney's inadequate trial preparation, alleging that the attorney had met with him only once before trial for a period of ten to fifteen minute. 2 The trial and criminal appellate courts dismissed the petition. In an unpublished decision, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals specifically stated and held: 7 The first contention, relative to indequate representation of trial [sic], is based on the charge that counsel only talked to him one time prior to trial and this was only for a period --of about ten minutes in the jail. The trial judge in his finding of fact analyzed the defense mounted in the trial court and held that the assistance received by defendant was adequate and competent. Appellant has failed to show here what additional matter might have been introduced in his defense if his trial counsel had consulted with him personally to a greater degree than he claims. We have examined the record and are in accord with the findings of the trial judge. 8 The Tennessee Court of criminal Appeals also overruled Drinnon's contention that permitting his wife to testify against him was reversible error. The court held that no privilege attached under the circumstances. It also considered contentions that his appeal of right was ineffectual because assignments of error had not been properly prepared and filed, but the court noted that the unbriefed assignments were considered and found to be without merit. The court finally found that appellant had a fair trial and overruled all assignments. 9 Since the appellate court believed that it was unclear whether Drinnon had been advised of his right to petition the Tennessee Supreme Court for writ of certiorari with respect to his original conviction, that court vacated its original judgment affirming the conviction and reentered it to give Drinnon a belated opportunity to appeal his conviction in a timely fashion. Subsequently, Drinnon claims to have petitioned the Tennessee Supreme Court, seeking review of his original conviction and of the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On April 16, 1979, the Tennessee Supreme Court denied petitioner's petition for certiorari in a one sentence order indicating that it had considered the petition, briefs, and the entire record. 10 It is unclear whether this Tennessee Supreme court order dealt with the delayed appeal from the original conviction or whether it denied certiorari with respect to the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals denying on its merits the assignments of error with respect to the post-conviction appeal relating to ineffective assistance of counsel. 11 On May 21, 1981, Drinnon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the united States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Drinnon raised the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in part because his attorney (Rhea) only met with him once before trial for less than fifteen minutes. Drinnon also alleged the following facts as evidencing Rhea's inadequate trial preparation: 12 (1) failure to file pre-trial motions; 13 (2) failure to discuss defense strategies with Drinnon; 14 (3) failure to seek meaningful plea bargain; and 15 (4) failure to investigate and to prepare the case adequately. 16 In his 1981 federal habeas corpus petition, Drinnon made the following assertion: 17 Nature of proceeding: Post Conviction Relief Petition, however, the petition was dismissed with the stipulation that petitioner could file a delayed appeal to State Supreme Ct. 18 Grounds raised: Ineffective assistance of counsel. 19 State Supreme Court denied certiorari (date unknown). Also, the Court of criminal Appeals affirmed the tri.al judge's dismissal of petitioner's post Conviction Relief petition. (July 13, 1978). Certiorari to the State Supreme Court was denied in 1979, on petitioner's post Conviction Relief Petition. 20 In its answer, the State sought dismissal of the petition on the basis of Drinnon's failure to exhaust claims (1) and (3) before any state court. After counsel was appointed for Drinnon by the district court, a memorandum was filed responding to the State's position. In regard to the exhaustion problem, it was contended that there were allegedly no such available State remedies for any claims he might wish to raise in attacking his conviction and sentence at this time, citing Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963); Carter v. Jago, 637 F.2d 449 (6th Cir.1980); and Keener v. Ridenour, 594 F.2d 581 (6th Cir.1979). It was conceded, however, that Drinnon might attempt a post-conviction petition, but the court would be bound to conclude that any claims he might raise are either waived or previously determined. Drinnon's counsel, however, did amend the habeas corpus petition. The pertinent portions of the amended claim are hereinafter set forth: 21 9. If you did appeal, answer the following: 22 (a) Name of court: Tennessee court of Criminal Appeals 23 (b) Result: Affirmed 24 (c) Date of result: March 9, 1976 25 (d) Grounds raised: (1) insufficient evidence; (2) failure to grant a continuance; (3) state's failure to disclose that a co-defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced before the verdict in this case was returned; (4) failure to instruct on defendant's theory of the case; and (5) unconstitutionality of the death penalty statute. 26 10. Other than a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, have you previously filed any petitions, applications, or motions with respect to this judgment in any court, state or federal? Yes X No 27 11. If your answer to lO was yes, give the following information: 28 (a)(1) Name of court: Criminal Court of Hamblen County 29 (2) Nature of proceeding: Post-Conviction Proceeding under Tenn. Code Ann. 5 40-3801, et seq. 30 (3) Grounds raised: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (3) reduction of sentence to statutory minimum; (4) deprivation of petitioner's right to petition the Tennessee Supreme Court for certiorari. 31 (4) Did you receive an evidentiary hearing on your petition, application or motion? Yes X No 32 (5) Result: relief granted 33 (6) Date of result: July 22, 1977 34