WPC( !Ozߕ13iMgyS- uvQfV S.bΫKVaW,aIq~^u>CJ@I*rYwx1{Z~AH5| Yԟ&]' %D|6my7#g {ψ+O4Al bA!KPA`,x;i% &ꓦ!ϥ_%$611/mxWD5*k]{һjզOŷ) otpG:]-9$H}㮸@{ IO7:NTG*o ] Zus rP:{!D׫t>q)(9 M yPN_dkM tH[*TƓAߐ t6}湲!VqWT8-*v55%UBF % U.  nX 0P$ 4t  0 0cb w@ U: U:? U:y  U:U: B D3    0D?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? AO 0D D/ B <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT3|XC<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  uM%((2$ !D   XXT   0  ("$ X<=XXX  0   /U01D2U3D4e5D67ӀAg"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular XXXXX$ XXX   Ad FILEDXXX $  May17,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular XXXXX$ XXX   Ad FILEDXXX $  May14,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d$$$$'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !D   4444` XPD  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  XXXX7  XXdd7  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  77A7r*<,(j 8` `@EQ ` 8ttxP"P  r7AAr*<,(j 8` `@EQ ` 8ttxP"P  rA77@uu:MATNASHVILLE  @KK7MAPRIL1999SESSION JOEGLASGOW,JR.,     ` )  p     X      ` )   C.C.A.NO.01C019803CR00105  `    Appellant,  򀀀   ` ) P     X      ` )  DAVIDSONCOUNTY  @  VS.   X      ` ) 0     X      ` )  HON.WALTERC.KURTZ,   STATEOFTENNESSEE,     ` )  JUDGE p    X      ` )   `   Appellee.      ` )  (PostConviction)  P  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     `   FORTHEAPPELLEE:   DAVIDA.COLLINS     `   JOHNKNOXWALKUP   211PrintersAlleyBldg.,4thFl.   `   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  p Nashville,TN37201    X      `   TIMOTHYBEHAN  "P     X      `   Asst.AttorneyGeneral #@     X      `   JohnSevierBldg. $0     X      `   425FifthAve.,North !  p#  %     X      `   Nashville,TN372430493    X      `   VICTORS.JOHNSON,III  P(!    X      `   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   X      `   KYMBERLYHAAS   +!$    X      `   Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral p#  ,"%    X      `   WashingtonSquare,Suite500   X      `   222SecondAve.,North   X      `   Nashville,TN37201   X      `   44//44//44   X   OPINIONFILED:____________________ AFFIRMED  @8.2  JOHNH.PEAY,  ;15 Judge  <37 X0  0@:M wvXXOPINION#XXwvs#Ԉ `     ThisisthethirdtimeapanelofthisCourthasvisitedthiscase.SeeState F  v.JoeGlasgow,Jr.,No.01C019102CC00082,DavidsonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App. & filedOctober10,1991,atNashville)(directappealofconvictions); XXXXXԀJoeGlasgow,Jr.v.  State,01C019603CC00092,DavidsonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedSeptember30,   1997,atNashville)(postconviction).#XXX XX##Inthemostrecentopinion,thisCourtremandedto V  thepostconvictioncourttoallowthepetitioneranopportunitytoshowhehadstandingtochallengethesearchofarentalvehiclethatledtothediscoveryofdrugs.Onremand,thepostconvictioncourtdeterminedthatthepetitionerhadstandingtochallengethesearchofhispersonandthesearchofhisbelongingsintherentalvehicle,butdidnothavestandingtochallengethesearchofhisstepfathersluggage,inwhichoverfivegramsofaScheduleIIcontrolledsubstancewasfound.Thepetitionernowappeals. XXXXXFindingnoerror,weaffirmthepostconvictioncourtsorder.#XXX XX{# !z  XXXXX  AccordingtothisCourtsfirstopinion,apoliceinformantreportedthatthe %& petitionerandhisstepfather,JerryWebber,hadtraveledfromFloridaforthepurposeofsellingdrugs,includinghydromorphone.TheinformantbelievedthatWebber,whowasdyingofcancer,wouldobtainprescriptionsforhydromorphonefromvariousFloridadoctors,filltheprescriptionsatdifferentpharmacies,andgivetheexcesstothepetitionertosellinNashville.TheinformantstatedthatthepetitionerandWebber,whoweretravelinginayellowMonteCarlorentalcarbearingFloridatags,wouldbestoppingatthepetitionersfathershouseandthenhissistersapartment,afterwhichtheyintendedtoselldrugsinthe projects.Basedonthisinformation,thepoliceobservedthepetitionerandWebberastheydrovefromthepetitionersfathershousetohissistersapartment.WhenthepetitionerandWebberexitedtheapartmentandclimbedintotherentalcar,the ~7.2 officersstoppedthem.Webberwasinthedriversseatandthepetitionerwasinthepassengersseat.Thepoliceofficerssearchedthecarandfoundluggageinthetrunk.InWebberssuitcase,thepolicefound275hydromorphonetablets,andinthepetitionersbag,thepolicefoundasmallamountofmarijuana.#X[XX X[# d   Thepetitionerwasconvictedofpossessinginexcessoffivegramsofhydromorphone,aScheduleIIcontrolledsubstance,forthepurposeofsaleandwassentencedasaRangeIIespeciallyaggravatedoffendertofiftyyearsinjail.Hewasalsoconvictedofpossessingmarijuana,aScheduleVIcontrolledsubstance,forwhichhereceivedaconcurrentelevenmonth,twentyninedayworkhousesentence.Inhisdirectappealofhisconvictions,heclaimedinteraliathathereceivedineffectiveassistanceof X trialcounselinpartbecausecounselfailedtochallengethesearchthatrevealedthedrugsbyfilingamotiontosuppress.ApanelofthisCourtaffirmed.44Glasgow,No.  01C019102CC00082.  Thepetitionerfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,claiminginteraliathat T$ hisattorneyonthemotionfornewtrial,whowasdifferentfromhistrialcounsel,wasineffectivebecausehefailedtoofferproofthatamotiontosuppresswouldhavebeenmeritorious.Thepostconvictioncourtultimatelydeniedhimrelief,rulinginpartthatthepetitionercouldnotpresentevidenceregardingthesearchissuebecausethatissuehadbeenpreviouslydetermined.Onappeal,apanelofthisCourtheldthatwhiletheissueofwhethertrialcounselwasineffectivehadbeenpreviouslydetermined,theissueofwhethertheattorneywhofiledthemotionforanewtrialwasineffectivehadnotbeenpreviouslydetermined.Thus,thisCourtremandedthecasetoallowthepetitioneranopportunitytoshow hehadalegitimateexpectationofprivacyintheareawheretheseizeddrugswerefound.Glasgow,01C019603CC00092. L6,2 Ї  Atthehearingonremand,thepetitioneradmittedthatWebberrentedthecar,wastheonlyauthorizeddriverunderthecarrentalagreement,andhadthecarkeysatthetimethepoliceapproachedthem.Hemaintained,though,thathewasinthecareverytimeitwasdriven,thathehadWebberspermissiontodrivethecar,andthattheysharedthedrivingdutiesfromFloridatoTennessee.Healsoindicatedthathehadplacedaluggagebagintherentalcarstrunkandthatheexpectedhecouldpreventothersfromopeningthebag.Basedonthisevidence,thepostconvictioncourtconcludedthatthepetitionerhadstandingtoobjectto asearchofhispersonandhisownpersonaleffectsinthecarbutdidnothavestanding tocontestthesearchofthetrunkasitrelatestotheseizureofhisstepfathersbag.  Thepetitionernowarguesthatthetrialcourterredinconcludingthathelackedstandingtochallengethesearchoftherentalcartrunk.Wedisagree.Tohavestandingtochallengethereasonablenessofasearchorseizure,adefendantmustestablishalegitimateexpectationofprivacyinthepropertysearched.E.g.,Rawlingsv. "( Kentucky,448U.S.98(1980).Sevenfactorsareapplicabletothestandinginquiry:(1) T$ propertyownership;(2)possessoryinterestinthethingseized;(3)possessoryinterestintheplacesearched;(4)whetherthedefendanthadarighttoexcludeothersfromthatplace;(5)whetherthedefendantsubjectivelyexpectedthattheplacewouldremainfreefromgovernmentalinvasion;(6)whetherthedefendanttooknormalprecautionstomaintainhisprivacy;and(7)whetherthedefendantwaslegitimatelyonthepremises. P-#( Statev.Oody,823S.W.2d554,560(Tenn.Crim.App.1991)(citingUnitedStatesv. /%* Haydel,649F.2d1152(5thCir.1981)).Onemayhavealegitimateexpectationof 0', privacyevenifthepropertysearchedbelongedtoanother.Statev.Turnbill,640S.W.2d 2T). 40,45(Tenn.Crim.App.1982);seeRakasv.Illinois,439U.S.128(1978). 4 +0  L6,2   InRakas,thedefendantswerepassengersinacardrivenbythecars `  ownerwhenthecarwasstoppedandsearched,revealingcontrabandinthelockedglovecompartmentandunderthefrontpassengerseat.Rakas,439U.S.at130.Theyargued   thattheyhadstandingtoassertthatasearchofthecarviolatedtheirFourthAmendmentrightsmerelybecausetheywerelegitimatelyinthecarwiththeownerspermissionatthetimeitwasstopped.Id.at13233.TheCourtdisagreed,notingthatthedefendantsdid \  notasserteitherapropertyorapossessoryinterestintheautomobileoraninterestinthepropertyseized.Id.at148.Moreover,theCourtstatedthedefendantshadmade no   showingthattheyhadanylegitimateexpectationofprivacyintheglovecompartmentorareaundertheseatofthecarinwhichtheyweremerelypassengers.Likethetru5c56n6kofanautomobile,theseareareasinwhichapassengerquapassengersimplywouldnotnormallyhavealegitimateexpectationofprivacy.Id.at14849. $   Here,thepetitionerwasapassengerinarentalcardrivenbythelessee.Thepetitionerdidnotrentthecaranddidnothavepermissionofthecarowner,thecarrentalagency,todrivethecar.HeclaimshehadWebberspermissiontodrivethecarandthatheinfactdrovethecaratsomepoint,buthewasneitherdrivingthecarnorhadthecarkeysatthetimethesearchwasconducted.Instead,Webber,thelessee,hadcontrolofthecaratthetimethesearchwasconducted.  Underthesecircumstances,eventhoughthepetitionertestifiedhehadasubjectiveexpectationofprivacy,hefailedtoprovehehadareasonableorlegitimateexpectationofprivacy.Cf.UnitedStatesv.Dunson,940F.2d989(6thCir. 0', 1991)(standingestablishedwherebothdefendants,oneadriverandoneapassengerwhenitwasstopped,legitimatelyborrowedthecarfromitsowner);UnitedStatesv.Little, 4 +0 945F.Supp.79,83&n.2(S.D.N.Y.1996)(defendantdriverinsolepossessionofthecar L6,2 establishedalegitimateexpectationofprivacybyprovingthelawfullesseeofthecargavehimpermissiontousethecar).Giventheproofintherecord,wewillnotdisturbthepostconvictioncourtsconclusionthatthepetitionerlackedstandingtochallengethesearchoftherentalcartrunk.Rakas,439U.S.at14849;seeUnitedStatesv.Pino,855 d F.2d357(6thCir.1988)(wherelesseewasincaratthetimeitwasstopped,defendantpassengerwhodidnothaveavaliddriverlicenseandwasnotanauthorizeddriverdidnotprovealegitimateexpectationofprivacy);UnitedStatesv.Frederickson,1990WL (  159411(6thCir.1990)(unpublisheddisposition)(nolegitimateexpectationofprivacywherethedefendantdidnothaveadriverlicenseandwasnotlistedontherentalagreement,eventhoughthelesseewasnotintherentalcar);cf.UnitedStatesv.Jones, , 44F.+2+,3,d860,871(10thCir.1995)(statingthat adefendantinsolepossessionandcontrolofacarrentedbyathirdpartyhasnostandingtochallengeasearchorseizureofthecar);UnitedStatesv.Riazco,91F.3d752,75455(5thCir.1996)(inaccordwithJones);  UnitedStatesv.Wellons,32F.3d117,119(4thCir.1994)(inaccordwithJones).The  \ orderdenyingpostconvictionreliefisaffirmed.--1..1   X      `   _______________________________   X      `   JOHNH.PEAY,Judge22CONCUR:3_3_____________________________DAVIDH.WELLES,Judge______________________________J.CURWOODWITT,JR.,Judge