WPC# U:V % 0w@r 4   0  0D 0JA 0T 0^ 0h= 0r 0| 0 0 1uU, 0dJ BU,U*B)!DCJ AMiv~{v D3! 0@! AO?"" 0DT# D/# B#,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  1U2E34E56e7e8E9ӀCD 3|xC((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7lXXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G  !  #d#!    ! \RA'\#d#   !   YYY FILED!XJune27,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#!     \RA'\#d#    $       Onvariousdocumentsintherecord,theappellantsnameisalsospelledinthefollowingmanners: TroyBroderick; TroyBroaderick;and ToryBoraderick.Nevertheless,theappellantssignatureconsistentlyreflectsthespelling TroyBroadrick.Moreover,thiscourtspreviousopinionsreflectthespelling TroyBroadrick.  !#d#!     \RA'\#d#    $       Wenotethatifcounselwaseffectiveatallstagesoftheproceedings,then,clearly,counselsperformancedidnotdenytheappellantanadequatehearingofhiscasepursuanttoprinciplesofdueprocess.SeegenerallyIngrahamv.Wright,430U.S.651,671n.40,672674,97S.Ct.1401,1412n.40,14131414(1977)(thestatemaynotimposepunishmentuntilithassecuredaformaladjudicationofguiltinaccordancewithdueprocessoflaw);Ponziv.Fessenden,258U.S.254,260,42S.Ct.309,310(1922)( [o]neaccusedofcrimehasarighttoafullandfairtrialaccordingtothelawofthegovernmentwhosesovereigntyheisallegedtohaveoffended).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco 'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &  Xd&#  Xd#!     \RA'\#Xd##Xd#   @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@ MARCHSESSION,1996 TROYBROADRICK ,  )     ) No.01C019508CR00252 Appellant   )     ) SUMNERCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon.JaneWheatcraft,Judge L$%#;+'h|`   `LߛSTATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) (PostConviction) Appellee   )FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee:StevenF.Glaser    CharlesW.BursonAsst.PublicDefender   AttorneyGeneralandReporter117EastMainStreet Gallatin,TN37066    MaryAnnQueen      LegalAssistant      WilliamDavidBridgers      AssistantAttorneyGeneral       CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493                LawrenceRayWhitley        DistrictAttorneyGeneral      DeeD.Gay      Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral      CordellHullBuilding      Gallatin,TN37066OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes Judge@ OPINION  Theappellant,TroyBroadrick,appealsthetrialcourtsdismissalofhissecondpetitionforpostconvictionrelief. &   ׀Onappeal,theappellantessentiallycontendsthatbothtrialandappellatecounselwereineffective,therebyviolatingtheappellantsrightsundertheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,section9oftheTennesseeConstitution.Moreover,theappellantarguesthathewasdeniedafullandfairhearingofhiscase,asrequiredbytheFifthandFourteenthAmendmentsoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,section8oftheTennesseeConstitution,by(1)counselsperformanceattrialandondirectappealand(2)thetrialcourtathisfirstpostconvictionhearing.@  I.FactualBackground  TheappellantiscurrentlyservinganeffectivesentenceofsixtythreeyearsintheDepartmentofCorrectionfollowinghisconvictionsforninecountsofaggravatedrape,threecountsofrape,andonecountofsexualbattery.Thiscourtaffirmedtheappellantsconvictionsondirectappeal.Statev.Broadrick,No.88257III(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1989). OnMarch5,1990,theappellantfiledhisfirstprosepetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Inhisprosepetition,theappellantincludedthefollowingissues:8 1.8 Counselprovidedineffectiveassistancebywithholdingtapeswhichwereimportanttotheappellantsdefense.8 2.8 Theappellantsrighttodueprocessofthelawwasviolatedwhenaguardenteredthejuryroomduringdeliberationandwhentheprosecutorsvictimwitnesscoordinatorcameintocontactwiththejuryduringdeliberation.8 3.8 Theappellantsrighttodueprocessofthelawwasviolatedwhenthetrialjudgeattemptedtorushthejurysdeliberation.8 4.8 TheappellantsrighttodueprocessofthelawwasviolatedwhenanemployeeoftheDepartmentofHumanServices,testifyingonbehalfoftheState,liedconcerningtheavailabilityofacertaintape.8 5.8 TheappellantsrightstodueprocessofthelawandequalprotectionwereviolatedwhenadetectivewiththeSumnerCountySheriffsDepartmentthreatenedtheappellantswifeinordertoobtaintestimonyfavorabletotheState.Theappellantwasthenappointedcounsel,whofiledanamendedpetition.Theamendedpetitionsetforthnumerousissuesrelatingtoineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,butomittedtheabovefiveissues.OnMay31,1991,attheconclusionofanevidentiaryhearing,thetrialcourtdismissedtheappellantspetition,findingthattheappellanthadfailedtoestablishineffectiveassistanceofcounselatanystageoftheproceedings.Thiscourtaffirmedthetrialcourtsdismissalofthepetition.Broadrickv.State,No.01C019109CC00260(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1992). OnApril27,1994,theappellantfiledasecondprosepetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Again,thetrialcourtappointedcounsel,whofiledanamendedpetition.Theamendedpetitionsetforththefiveissuesoriginallyraisedintheappellantsfirstprosepetition.OnApril3,1995,followinganevidentiaryhearing,thecourtdismissedtheappellantspetition,findingthattheappellantscontentionsaremeritless.@  II.Analysis  Initially,wenotethat,inhisbrief,theappellantonlyaddressesineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,relyinglargelyuponfactualallegationssetforthinhisfirstamendedpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Theappellantarguesthathewasnotaffordedafullandfairhearingonhisoriginalpostconvictionpetition.Althoughtheopportunitytocollaterallyattackconstitutionalviolationsoccurringduringtheconvictionprocessisnotafundamentalrightentitledtoheighteneddueprocessprotection,neverthelessdueprocessrequiresthatlitigantsbeprovidedanopportunityforthepresentationofclaimsatameaningfultimeandinameaningfulmanner.Burfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,207208(Tenn.1992).SeealsoHousev.State,911S.W.2d705,711(Tenn.1995),cert.denied,򀀀U.S.򀀀,򀀀S.Ct.򀀀(1996).Weconcludethattheappellantsclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselhasbeenpreviouslydeterminedinaccordancewithprinciplesofdueprocess.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030112(a)(1990).Thiscourt,inreviewingthetrialcourtsdenialoftheappellantsfirstpetition,observedthatthetrialcourtallowedtheappellanttodevelophisineffectiveassistanceissuefully.Broadrick,No.01C019109CC00260.Additionally,thiscourtconcludedthattherecordsupportsthetrialcourtsconclusionthattheappellantwasaffordedeffectiveassistanceofcounselattrialandonappeal.Id. Withrespecttotheadditionalfactualallegationsraisedintheinstantpetition,thiscourthaspreviouslyheldthattheissueofineffectiveassistanceofcounselisasingle groundforreliefascontemplatedbyTenn.CodeAnn.4030111(1990).Conev.State,No.02C019403CR00052(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,March22,1995),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1996).InCone,weobserved8 Apetitionermaynotrelitigateapreviouslydeterminedissuebypresentingadditionalfactualallegations.Weshouldnotencouragepostconvictionpetitionerstoinventnewfactstoreviveanissuewhichwasunfavorablydecided,norshouldweallowpetitionerstosandbagbyreservingfactualclaimsuntiltheirsecondorthirdpetition.Id.Inanyevent,theappellantwasaffordedanevidentiaryhearingonhissecondpetitionforpostconvictionreliefandwaspermittedtopresenttothetrialcourtadditionalproofinsupportofhisclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Thetrialcourtconcludedthattheappellantscontentionismeritless.Inreviewingpostconvictionproceedings,thefactualfindingsofthetrialcourtareconclusiveonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstsuchfindings.Davisv.State,912S.W.2d689,697(Tenn.1995);Cooperv.State,849S.W.2d744,746(Tenn.1993);Butlerv.State,789S.W.2d898,899(Tenn.1990).Weconcludethattherecordsupportsthetrialcourtsfindingthattheappellantonceagainfailedtocarryhisburdenofprovingineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Wadev.State,914S.W.2d97,101(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1995);McBeev.State,655S.W.2d191,195(Tenn.Crim.App.1983). '    Theappellantcompletelyneglectstoaddressinhisbrieftheremainingfourissuesraisedintheamendedpetition.Accordingly,underTenn.R.App.P.27(a)(4)and(7)andCt.ofCrim.App.Rule10(b),theappellanthaswaivedtheseissues.Moreover,theseissueshavebeenwaivedduetotheappellantsfailuretoraisetheminpriorproceedings.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030112(b).Contrarytotheappellantsassertion, therebuttablepresumptionofwaiverisnotovercomebyanallegationthat[theappellant]didnotpersonally...waivethegroundforrelief....[Anappellant]isboundbytheactionorinactionofhisattorney.SeeHouse,911S.W.2dat714.Therefore,hisattorneysomissionofissuesfromthefirstamendedpetitionresultedintheappellantswaiverofthoseissuesforthepurposeofthissecondpostconvictionproceeding. TheappellantcitesWilliamsv.State,831S.W.2d281(Tenn.1992),forthepropositionthat,becausetheissuesraisedintheappellantsoriginalprosepetitionwereneverfullyadjudicated,theappellantcouldnothavewaivedthoseissues.However,inWilliams,oursupremecourtaddressedtheeffectonsubsequentpetitionsofthewithdrawalofapetitionbyanappellantpriortoentryofthejudgment.CitingAlbertv.State,813S.W.2d426,428(Tenn.1991),thecourtobservedthat,whenapriorpetitionhasbeenwithdrawn,therehasbeen noproceedingbeforeacourtatwhichthegroundsalleged[intheinstantpetition]couldhavebeenpresented.Williams,831S.W.2dat282.Accordingly,waivercannotoccur.Id.Inthiscase,theappellantdidnotwithdrawhisearlierpetition.Rather,appellantscounselamendedhispetition.Thetrialcourtthenconductedanevidentiaryhearingandenteredajudgmentonthemeritsoftheappellantspetition. Finally,asinthecaseoftheappellantsclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,therecordsupportsthetrialcourtsconclusionthattheappellantfailedtoprovetheremainingfourallegationsinhispetitionbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Additionally,wenotethattheappellantspetitionistimebarredunderTenn.CodeAnn.4030102(1990).Contrarytotheappellantsassertioninhisbrief,oursupremecourtsdecisioninBurfordisinapplicabletothiscaseastherecorddemonstratesthattheappellantwasafforded anopportunityforthepresentationof[his]claimsatameaningfultimeandinameaningfulmanner.845S.W.2dat208.Inanycase,theallegationsraisedinappellantssecondpetitionarenot laterarisinggroundsascontemplatedbyBurford.SeeSandsv.State,903S.W.2d297,301(Tenn.1995)( [i]napplyingtheBurfordruletospecificfactualsituations,courtsshouldutilizeathreestepprocess:(1)determinewhenthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun;(2)determinewhetherthegroundsforreliefactuallyaroseafterthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavecommenced;and(3)ifthegroundsare laterarising,determineif...astrictapplicationsofthelimitationsperiodwouldeffectivelydenythepetitionerareasonableopportunitytopresenttheclaim).IncontrasttotheappellantssituationinBurford,theappellantintheinstantcasewasinnoway caughtinaproceduraltrapthatpreventedhimfromlitigatinghisclaimswithinthestatuteoflimitations.Burford,845S.W.2dat208. ` XO)0*X  Accordingly,thetrialcourtsdismissaloftheappellantspetitionforpostconvictionreliefisaffirmed.     ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeCONCUR:_____________________________________JERRYL.SMITH,Judge_____________________________________WILLIAMS.RUSSELL,SpecialJudge