ÿWPC …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xlb{U.ƒ 0J± 0€û 0D{ 0T¿ 0^ 0hq 0rÙ 0|K 0†Ç 0M 1uÝ U,R 0d~ U,â U> BLB)iDC’ AMÕ"> D3[v~ŽvÓ  0@ß AOÆn 0D4 0Dx D/¼ Bë˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0ºÖP _>¶ ×K&` ÚP(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡3x2 @ d3|x- ù-%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(<2iÔ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òDecember€13,€1995ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ý€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔòòThe€record€is€silent€as€to€the€details€of€the€first€petition.óóÌ$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ  ÔßL€'(&;+'h|` Å `€€Lßà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à ààQ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€OCTOBER€1995ÏSESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ ` cùÓTHOMAS€E.€CROSCUP,€JR.,à àó ó)à àC.C.A.€No.€02C01„9502„CC„00042Ìà à)€€Ì€€€€€Appellant,à à)à àLauderdale€CountyÌ€€€€€€€à à)ÌV.à à)à àHon.€Joseph€H.€Walker,€JudgeÌò òà àó ó)ò òÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà à)à à(Post„Conviction:€€First€Degree€Murder)Ì€à à)Ì€€€€€Appellee.à à)ÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌThomas€E.€Croscup,€Jr.,€òòProóó€òòSeóóà àCharles€W.€BursonÌBrushy€Mountain€State€Prisonà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌPetros,€TN€37845Ìà àMichelle€L.€LehmannÌà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àElizabeth€T.€RiceÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àWilliam€K.€RandolphÌà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà à302€Market€StreetÌà àSomerville,€TN€38068Ìà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ ` pÓò òà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó ó€ÌÌÑ Ü ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ7€¶+XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÌÌÓ ` ¸ pÓÓÓà àPetitioner€Thomas€E.€Croscup,€Jr.,€appeals€from€the€trial€court's€dismissalÏof€his€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€denied€him€the€right€to€an€evidentiary€hearing.€ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌ€à à€On€June€6,€1979,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€andÏsentenced€to€life€in€prison.€€This€Court€affirmed€the€conviction;€and€the€SupremeÏCourt€denied€permission€to€appeal€on€July€28,€1980.€€The€petitioner€filed€a€post„conviction€petition€on€January€5,€1981,€which€was€apparently€denied.× ƒ) ××  ×€€€TheÍpetitioner€filed€the€present€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€August€16,€1994.€ÏHe€alleged€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€erroneous€jury€instructions.€€ÏThe€state€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€contending€that€the€petitioner's€claims€wereÏbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€withoutÏan€evidentiary€hearing.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„30„109(a)(1)€(1990)€provides€thatÏwhen€a€petition€has€been€competently€drafted€and€the€record€conclusivelyÏshows€that€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief,€the€petition€may€be€dismissed.€ÏAllegations€in€òòproóó€òòseóó€petitions€are€held€to€less€stringent€standards€than€formalÏpleadings€drafted€by€lawyers.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€939€(Tenn.Ï1975).€€The€test€is€whether€it€appears,€beyond€doubt,€that€the€petitioner€cannotÏprove€a€set€of€facts€supporting€his€claim€which€would€entitle€him€to€relief.€€òòIdóó.€€WeÏfind€that€the€petitioner's€petition€was€competently€drafted.ÌÌà àWe€must€next€determine€whether€the€statute€of€limitations€bars€theÏpetitioner's€claims.€€In€July€of€1986,€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€wasÏamended.€€This€amendment€requires€that€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief€beÏfiled€within€three€(3)€years€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court's€final€action.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990).€€A€petitioner€whose€judgment€becameÏfinal€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€amendment,€had€three€years€from€theÏeffective€date€of€the€amendment,€July€1,€1989,€€within€which€to€file€a€petition€forÍpost„conviction€relief€before€the€statute€of€limitations€barred€consideration€of€theÏpetition.€€òòState€v.€Masuccióó,€754€S.W.2d€90,€91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€TheÏpetitioner€filed€the€present€petition€approximately€five€years€after€July€1,€1989.€ÏAbsent€an€exception,€the€statute€bars€his€petition€from€consideration.ÌÌà àCase€law€has€carved€out€two€exceptions€to€the€statute€of€limitations:ÌÓÓà8 à1)€Application€of€the€statute€would€deprive€a€litigant€of€aÏreasonable€opportunity€to€have€the€issue€heard€and€decided€inÏviolation€of€the€due€process€clause.€€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2dÏ204€(Tenn.€1992);€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995);ÏandÌÌà8 à2)€Where€a€new€constitutional€right€has€been€created€after€theÏexpiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations€which€requires€retroactiveÏapplication.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€(1990).ÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€now€turn€to€the€petitioner's€allegations€in€his€petition€and€brief€onÏappeal.€€The€first€six€allegations€relate€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€eitherÏat€trial€or€during€a€previous€post„conviction€proceeding.€€These€allegations€areÏbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€and€do€not€fall€within€either€exception.€ÏFurthermore,€the€petitioner€has€no€constitutional€right€to€counsel€in€a€state€post„conviction€proceeding;€therefore,€no€claim€may€be€predicated€on€denial€ofÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€65€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1991).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó€No.€03„S„01„9407„CR„00069,€slipÏop.€at€2„3€(Tenn.€Sept.€25,€1995).€€ÌÑ ° ÑÌà àThe€next€eleven€allegations,€labeled€a„k,€are€under€the€heading€ofÏ"[u]nconstitutional€burden€shifting€jury€instructions."€€Allegations€a,€i,€j€and€k€areÏbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€and€do€not€fit€within€any€exception.ÌÌà àSeveral€allegations€relate€to€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€These€allegations€are€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€the€juryÏthat:€€c)€deliberate€is€defined€as€with€a€cool€purpose;€d)€&€h)€intent€or€designÏmay€be€conceived€and€deliberately€formed€in€an€instant;€and€g)€the€elements€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€can€be€inferred€from€the€circumstances€of€theÏkilling.€€In€òòBrownóó,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€that€"it€is€prudent€to€abandon€anÏinstruction€that€tells€the€jury€that€'premeditation€may€be€formed€in€an€instant.'€ÏSuch€an€instruction€can€only€result€in€confusion,€given€the€fact€that€the€jury€mustÏalso€be€charged€on€the€law€of€deliberation."€€òòIdóó.€at€543.€€The€Supreme€Court€didÏnot€hold€that€the€instruction€on€premeditation€violated€a€constitutional€right.€€TheÏCourt€did€not€intend€that€òòBrownóó€should€be€applied€retroactively€to€invalidateÏevery€first€degree€murder€case€wherein€the€jury€had€been€instructed€thatÏpremeditation€may€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€òòState€v.€Baconóó,€No.€1164€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€Aug.€4,€1992);€òòLane€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9403„CR„00089Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€27,€1995).€€Therefore,€the€petitioner's€allegations€are€notÏof€a€constitutional€dimension€and€will€not€support€a€claim€for€post„convictionÍrelief.€€Furthermore,€òòBrownóó€does€not€apply€retroactively.€€The€statute€ofÏlimitations€bars€consideration€of€these€claims.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner's€remaining€allegations€in€his€brief€are€as€follows:€b)€&€e)Ïerror€to€instruct€that€all€homicides€are€presumed€to€be€malicious€absent€rebuttalÏevidence;€and€f)€error€to€instruct€that€if€a€deadly€weapon€is€used,€then€there€is€aÏpresumption€of€proof€of€second€degree€murder€unless€rebutted€by€other€factsÏand€circumstances.€€Relying€on€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510€(1979),Ïthe€petitioner€argues€that€the€jury€instructions€render€his€convictionÏunconstitutional.€€òòSandstromóó€established€that€the€due€process€clause€of€theÏfourteenth€amendment€prohibits€jury€instructions€that€have€the€effect€of€relievingÏthe€state€of€its€burden€of€proof€on€the€element€of€intent€in€a€criminal€prosecution.€ÏThis€decision€announced€a€constitutional€rule€decided€after€the€petitioner'sÏconviction.€€On€January€12,€1988,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€thatÏòòSandstromóó€is€to€be€given€retroactive€application.€€òòYates€v.€Aikenóó,€484€U.S.€211Ï(1988).ÌÌà à€In€òòState€v.€Bolinóó,€€678€S.W.2d€40€(Tenn.€1984),€however,€the€Court€heldÏthat€a€jury€instruction€virtually€identical€to€the€instruction€in€allegation€f€wasÏconstitutional.€€Unlike€the€instruction€in€òòSandstromóó,€the€instruction€in€òòBolinóóÏcontained€the€language€"raises€a€presumption€of€malice,€unless€rebutted€byÏother€facts€and€circumstances€to€the€contrary."€€òòIdóó.€at€41.€€The€Court€stated€thatÍ"[t]he€words€of€the€presumption,€the€immediate€context€in€which€they€appear,Ïand€the€overall€context€of€the€jury€instruction,€remove€this€case€from€the€dueÏprocess€trap€adjudicated€in€òòSandstromóó,€in€our€opinion.€"€€òòIdóó.€at€42.€€€The€CourtÏemphasized€the€importance€of€judging€a€single€jury€instruction€in€the€context€ofÏthe€overall€charge,€and€not€in€isolation.€€The€overall€charge€to€the€jury€wasÏimportant,€if€not€vital,€to€the€Court's€decision.€€ÌÌà àThe€instructions€on€review€appear€similar€to€those€in€òòBolinóó€and€are€likelyÏconstitutional,€precluding€a€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.€€We,€however,€needÏnot€inquire€further€because€appellant€has€a€statute€of€limitations€problem€as€toÏthis€burden€shifting€issue.€€The€retroactive€application€of€òòSandstromóó€occurred€inÏ1988.€€By€any€measurement€of€the€limitations€period,€the€petitioner€filed€thisÏ1994€petition€too€late.€€òòSeeóó€òòAbston€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€487€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988);€òòState€v.€Masuccióó,€754€S.W.2d€90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.ÏMullinsóó,€767€S.W.2d€668€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌà àWe€assume€that€our€reasoning€is€similar€to€that€of€the€trial€court€when€itÏdismissed€the€petition.€€We€point€out€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118€(1990)Ïmandates€that€the€final€order€should€state€in€writing€the€findings€andÏconclusions€of€law€regarding€each€ground.€€This€was€not€done€in€the€presentÏcase.€€Such€omission€does€not€necessarily€constitute€reversible€error,€but€courtsÍshould€delineate€reasons€pursuant€to€the€post„conviction€act.€€òòSwansonóó,€749ÏS.W.2d€at€736€n.3.ÌÌà àConsistent€with€this€opinion,€the€order€of€dismissal€by€the€trial€court€isÌÌò òà àAFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓ` ¸ pÓÓÓó óà àà ààQ àà à______________________________Ìà àà ààQ àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌ