ÿWPC\ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘ BÏU*ìB)DC? AM‚$Ï D3óv~&vÓ¤ 0@w AO·Æ 0DÌ D/ B?˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Ô¡¨ ppppdp3|xõ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ã Eä å Eæ Eç Eè Eé Uê ¦ë eì Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌAugust€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ7€v7XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` °œXӜـ€ÙßL€()';+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àJUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌKENNETH€ALLEN€ARVIN,€JR,à àà à)à àNO.Ï01C01„9510„CC„00322Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àHICKMAN€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CORNELIA€A.€CLARKÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌDAVID€MILLS,€WARDEN,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(Habeas€Corpus)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌKenneth€Allen€Arvin,€Jr.à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌPro€Seà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌTurney€Center€Industrial€Prison€and€Farmà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌRoute€Oneà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌOnly,€Tennessee€37140„9709Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEllen€H.€PollackÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Atty.€Gen.€&€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€D.€Baugh,ÏJr.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRonald€DavisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€Tennessee€37243Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓòòÌÌÓ Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌThe€appellant,€Kenneth€Allen€Arvin,€Jr.,€appeals€as€of€right€the€trial€courtððsÏdismissal€of€his€petition€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌIn€November€1980,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murderÏand€sentenced€to€serve€ninety„nine€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€On€June€28,€1995,€the€appellant€filed€a€petition€seeking€a€writ€of€habeasÏcorpus.€€The€sole€basis€upon€which€he€claims€entitlement€to€the€writ€of€habeasÏcorpus€is€that€the€trial€court€used€the€term€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€when€it€instructed€the€juryÏon€the€definition€of€reasonable€doubt.€€On€direct€appeal,€the€appellantððs€convictionÏwas€affirmed€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€on€August€13,€1982€and€€the€SupremeÏCourt€denied€his€application€for€permission€to€appeal€on€November€1,€1982.€€TheÏappellant€has€filed€two€prior€post„conviction€petitions.€€Both€petitions€were€dismissedÏand€appealed€to€this€court.€€The€dismissal€of€his€first€post„conviction€appeal€wasÍaffirmed€by€this€court.€€His€second€post„conviction€appeal€was€dismissed€by€thisÏcourt.€€In€both€cases€the€Supreme€Court€denied€the€applications€for€permission€toÏappeal.€€€ÌThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€appellantððs€latest€petition€without€theÏappointment€of€counsel€or€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€theÏpetition€based,€in€part,€upon€the€following€findings:ÌÓÓÓ&` °ƒX˜ hˆXS%Ø'X&Ó(1)à8 àThis€is€not€a€proper€petition€for€habeas€corpus€relief.€ÏPetitioner€does€not€allege€that€his€conviction€is€facially€invalidÏor€that€it€has€expired.€€Petitioner€has€not€attached€a€copy€ofÏthe€judgment€order€or€jury€instructions,€and€has€not€given€aÏsatisfactory€reason€for€his€failure€to€do€so.€€TCA€ðð€29„21„107(b)(2).ÌÌ(2)à8 àRelief€under€the€post„conviction€petition€act€is€barred€in€thisÏcase€because€the€statute€of€limitations€has€expired.€€TCA€ððÏ40„30„102.€€By€filing€two€prior€such€petitions,€including€one€inÏ1992,€the€defendant€has€also€waived€the€right€to€raise€thisÏissue.€€TCA€ðð€40„30„112.€€In€any€event€such€a€petition€wouldÏhave€to€be€filed€in€Marshall€County.€€ÌÌÓÓAdditionally€the€trial€court€determined€that€were€his€claim€to€be€viewed€on€theÏmerits,€the€appellant€stated€no€cognizable€claim€for€post„conviction€relief.€€€ÌBecause€we€agree€that€the€appellant€did€not€claim€that€his€conviction€wasÏvoid€or€that€his€sentence€had€expired,€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€treat€thisÏpetition€as€one€seeking€habeas€corpus€relief.€€Although€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„30„205(c)€allows€a€trial€court€to€treat€a€petition€for€habeas€corpus€as€oneÏfor€post„conviction€relief,€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€dismissal€of€theÏpetition€was€appropriate.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„204€providesÍthat€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€shall€be€filed€in€the€county€of€the€petitionersððÏconviction.€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€was€convicted€in€Marshall€County€but€filed€hisÏpetition€for€relief€in€Hickman€County.€€€The€trial€court€lacked€authority,€statutory€orÏotherwise,€to€order€the€case€transferred€to€Marshall€County.€€òòSeeóó€òòNorton€v.€Everhartóó,Ï895€S.W.2d€317,€320€(Tenn.€1995).€€Accordingly,€€the€trial€court€properly€dismissedÏthe€petition.€ÌFinally,€we€agree€that€the€appellant€has€not€stated€a€constitutional€claim€forÏrelief€such€that€post„conviction€relief€should€issue.€€As€the€trial€court€correctlyÏrecognized,€in€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€___ÏU.S.€___,€115€S.Ct.€909,€130€L.Ed.€2d€791(1995),€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€useÏof€the€term€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€when€instructing€a€jury€on€reasonable€doubt€does€not€byÏitself€render€the€instruction€unconstitutional.€€Referring€to€an€instruction€almostÏidentical€to€the€instruction€given€in€the€appellantððs€case€the€court€said,€ÌÓÓà8 àWe€conclude,€however,€that€the€use€of€the€phrase€ð ðmoralÏcertaintyðð€by€itself€is€insufficient€to€invalidate€an€instruction€onÏthe€meaning€of€reasonable€doubt.€.€.€.€When€considered€inÏconjunction€with€an€instruction€that€ðð[r]easonable€doubt€is€thatÏdoubt€engendered€by€an€investigation€of€all€the€proof€in€theÏcase€and€an€inability,€after€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mindÏrest€easily€upon€the€certainty€of€your€verdict,ðð€we€find€that€theÏinstruction€properly€reflects€the€evidentiary€certainty€requiredÏby€the€ððdue€processðð€clause€of€the€federal€constitution€and€theÏððlaw€of€the€landðð€provision€in€our€state€constitution.€ÌÌà àà àòòId.óó€ÌÓÓÌIn€light€of€the€above„quoted€language€and€the€fact€that€the€instruction€given€inÏthe€appellantððs€case€was€essentially€the€same€as€the€instruction€at€issue€in€òòNicholsóó,Ïwe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€appellant€did€not€state€a€colorable€claim€eitherÏfor€post„conviction€relief€or€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€€ÌAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE€