ÿWPCÙ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0³H 0Dû 0J? 0T‰ U:Ý 0^ 0hu 0rÝ 0|O 0†Ë 0Q 1uá U,V 0d‚ BæU,U>/U*mB)—DCÀ D3 AM6þƒ 0@"Áv~ãvÓa AO4ƃ 0DI D/ B¼˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ïDð9eñòDóôõöe÷Ó€»{s 3|x(c(2ÔÉ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X>õXXXÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular2, 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 d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ôÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òJune€28,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€'ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€+,);+'h|"©` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌTERRY€D.€BARBER,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9508„CC„00210Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLake€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJoe€G.€Riley,€Jr.,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction€Relief)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€€APPELLEE.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌChristopher€M.€Mintonà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ213€Fifth€Avenue,€Northà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37219à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€P.€CauleyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Phillip€BivensÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Drawer€EÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDyersburg,€TN€38024ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÌÑ7€ÖXXdìXXdì7ÑØØÙ  ÙÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Terry€D.€Barber,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€summarily€dismissing€his€suit€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏthe€suit€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€However,€the€trial€court€alsoÏconsidered€the€grounds€raised€in€the€petition,€as€amended,€and€found€that€the€eachÏground€alleged€had€either€been€previously€determined€or€waived.€€This€Court€findsÏthat€the€suit€was€not€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations,€but€the€grounds€raised€by€theÏappellant€have€been€either€previously€determined€or€waived.€€Therefore,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓ  Óà àò òHISTORY€OF€PRIOR€PROCEEDINGSÌÓ  ÓÌà àó óOn€August€18,€1986,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder.€€The€juryÏfound€two€aggravating€circumstances,€(1)€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind,€and€(2)€the€murderÍwas€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€the€offense€of€larceny.ÏThe€jury€returned€a€death€sentence.€€He€was€also€convicted€of€first€degree€burglaryÏand€sentenced€to€confinement€for€fifteen€(15)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏHe€was€also€convicted€of€robbery€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€and€sentenced€toÏconfinement€for€life€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€sentences€for€burglary€andÏrobbery€are€to€be€served€concurrently.€€However,€these€sentences€are€to€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€the€death€sentence€imposed€by€the€jury.€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€affirmed€the€appellantððs€convictions€and€sentences.€€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2dÏ659€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€488€U.S.€900,€109€S.Ct.€248,€102€L.Ed.2d€236€(1988).Ìà àThe€appellant€filed€a€suit€for€post„conviction€relief€on€January€17,€1989.€€TheÏtrial€court€denied€the€relief€sought.€€He€appealed€as€of€right€to€this€Court.€€On€May€13,Ï1992,€this€Court€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€òòTerry€D.€Barber€v.€Stateóó,€LakeÏCounty€No.€2,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€13,€1992).€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€granted€the€appellantððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€for€the€purpose€ofÏreviewing€€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó× ƒ. ××  ×€issue,€using€the€same€felony€to€elevate€the€offense€toÏcapital€murder€and€again€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€The€Court€held€that€thisÏerror€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€185,€190Ï(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€_____€U.S.€_____,€115€S.Ct.€1177,€130€L.Ed.2d€1129Ï(1995).€Ìà àThe€present€action€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€on€May€23,€1991.€€After€theÏlatest€amendment€to€this€petition€on€April€3,€1995,€the€trial€court€summarily€dismissedÏthis€suit€without€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€appellant€subsequently€appealed€as€ofÍright€to€this€Court.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àò òSTATUTE€OF€LIMITATIONSó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€this,€his€second€action€for€post„conviction€relief,€is€notÏbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102.€€The€State€ofÏTennessee€concedes€that€the€suit€is€not€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€appellantððs€convictions€andÏsentences€in€an€opinion€released€March€21,€1988.€€The€appellant€filed€a€petition€toÏrehear.€€The€Supreme€Court€denied€the€petition€on€May€23,€1988.Ìà àThe€appellant€filed€this,€his€second€suit€for€post„conviction€relief,€on€May€23,Ï1991.€€Thus,€the€initial€petition€was€timely€given€the€manner€in€which€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€is€computed,€namely,€exclude€the€first€day€and€include€the€last€day.€€ThisÏdocument€was€entitled€ð ðVerified€Successor€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€Relief.ðð€€OnÏAugust€29,€1991,€the€appellant€filed€a€document€entitled€ð ðVerified€Amended€SuccessorÏPetition€for€Post„Conviction€Relief.ðð€€On€February€19,€1992,€the€appellant€filed€aÏdocument€entitled€ð ðVerified€Superceding€[sic]€Amended€Successor€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€Relief.ðð€€On€April€3,€1995,€the€appellant€filed€a€document€entitledÏð ðAmendment€to€Verified€Superseding€Amended€Successor€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€Relief.ððÌà àThe€trial€court€held€that€the€initial€suit€was€filed€within€the€allotted€three€years.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€ruled:€ð ðThe€amended€successor€petition€filed€on€February€19,Ï1992,€and€the€amendment€filed€on€April€3,€1995,€were€untimely.€€Accordingly,€theÍpetitions€must€be€dismissed.ððÌà àAs€this€Court€views€the€matter,€the€initial€petition€was€filed€in€a€timely€fashion.€€ÏThe€ensuing€petitions€were€simply€amendments€to€the€original€petition.€€The€petitionsÏin€question€have€the€word€ð ðamendedðð€contained€in€the€caption€albeit€the€petitionsÏappear€to€be€completely€new.€€These€amendments€relate€back€to€the€initial€petition€thatÏwas€timely€filed.€€€Consequently,€the€petitions€in€question€were€not€barred€by€theÏstatute€of€limitations.€€€à àThe€dismissal€of€the€petitions€does€not€hinder€this€CourtððsÏability€to€review€the€grounds€raised€on€the€merits.€€The€trial€court€considered€eachÏground€raised€and€found€that€all€of€the€grounds€were€either€previously€determined€orÏwaived.ÌÌÓ  Óò òKNOWING€USE€OF€PERJURED€TESTIMONYó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€his€conviction€violates€due€process€becauseÏWesley€D.€McClure€gave€perjured€testimony€and€the€state€knew€the€testimony€wasÏperjured.€€He€predicates€his€claim€upon€the€failure€of€the€state€to€reveal€ð ðdealsðð€madeÏbetween€the€state€and€Mr.€McClure.Ìà àThe€appellant€litigated€the€issue€of€ð ðdealsðð€in€the€first€post„convictionÏproceeding,€and€the€issue€was€raised€on€appeal.€€A€review€of€this€Courtððs€unreportedÏopinion€following€the€first€post„conviction€proceeding€reveals€that€the€issue€was€in€factÏraised€and€constituted€an€issue€on€appeal.Ìà àThis€issue€has€been€€previously€determined.€€€Any€portion€of€the€issue€notÏpreviously€determined€has€been€waived€for€failure€to€include€it€in€the€first€post„conviction€action.€€There€is€no€allegation€that€this€information€was€just€discovered€andÏthat€it€could€not€have€been€discovered€prior€to€the€first€post„conviction€action.€€RelianceÏon€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó€is€misplaced.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏsubsequently€reversed€this€opinion.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705€(Tenn.Ï1996).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òAPPLICATION€OF€FELONY€MURDER€AGGRAVATORó óÌÌÓ  Óà àAs€previously€indicated,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder.€€TheÏfelony€used€to€support€the€felony€murder€was€also€used€as€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€This€issue€was€considered€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,Ï889€S.W.2d€185€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€improper€use€of€thisÏaggravating€circumstance€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ìà àThis€issue€has€been€previously€determined.€€Consequently,€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òFAILURE€TO€CHARGE€MALICE€IN€FELONY€MURDER€CONVICTIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIt€is€a€well„established€rule€that€malice€is€not€an€element€of€felony„murder.€ÏConsequently,€the€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€an€instruction€on€malice.€€Moreover,Ïthe€appellant€does€not€allege€any€reason€why€this€issue€was€not€raised€on€directÏappeal€or€in€the€first€post„conviction€action.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òFAILURE€TO€GRANT€AN€EVIDENTIARY€HEARINGó óÌÓ  Óà àÌà àThe€appellant€claims€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€this€petition€without€aÏhearing.€€However,€appellantððs€argument€is€based€on€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€òòHouseóóÏwhich€has€been€reversed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Therefore,€the€fact€thatÏappellant€was€not€subjectively€aware€of€the€ð ðfacts€and€lawðð€in€support€of€his€claim€doesÏnot€rebut€the€presumption€of€waiver.€€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€714.Ìà àThe€issues€raised€in€the€petition€have€either€been€previously€determined€orÏwaived.€€€The€issues€that€are€waived€could€have€been€raised€on€direct€appeal€or€in€theÏfirst€post„conviction€action.€€The€reasons€given€for€failing€to€raise€these€issues€areÏinsufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,Ï911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìà àGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE