WPC v`=ԯ(͜bZFP )'#KSHCpE DF6#H}36ؒ,?q`_;b]7=Ʌe{~(r*XN9hL'QTrQ8Iv\Ig3L4B %p Qcʱ JY8`95A*#bDmv}g /CRoeb ɹ6rOASGK¡Wl.oVHVD< ]EsGS,.~װsDCj־9வZ *(g? 3q# F UNQ % 0G U: w@& 4f z U: 0   f U: fC   U: B D3    0DSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 0]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] AO++ 0D D/5 BdHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(-$XXXX,rAZ"Arial Regular JKDLUMDNDODPQ[RSӀ ', 3|x^rAZ"Arial Regular((2 $ -!XpXXX  X&dc&XXp   `   0  H \\RA' Legal\"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\ XpXXXXXp   Ad FILED    August25,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.  AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  I, II,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5N1^.I, II,Uppercase Roman>  .>0 -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd -!XpXXX  ݛX †%    TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TSr*<,(j 8 `@Eh tt0"rߛSINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  ATKNOXVILLEMAY1999SESSIONuGARYWILLIAMHOLT, h     )     `     h     ) p No.03C019808CR00279    ` Appellant,   h     ) x   `     h     ) p HamiltonCounty ^  v. `     h     ) D   `     h     ) p HonorableDouglasA.Meyer,Judge *z  STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     ) `  `     h     ) p (PostConviction) F  ` Appellee.   h     ) , FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE:  \ JOHNALLENBROOKS h      p JOHNKNOXWALKUP ( 736GeorgiaAvenue h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  Suite600    h      p   Chattanooga,TN37402 h      p R.STEPHENJOBE   (ElbowCounsel)   h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral p!   `     h      p 425FifthAvenueNorthGARYWILLIAMHOLT,prose     p Nashville,TN372430493 <#" TDOC#105031SouthCentralCorrectionalCenter   p WILLIAMH.COX,III %X $ P.O.Box279   h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral %>!% Clifton,TN384255346  h      p  &$"&  `     h      p  YOLANDAD.MITCHELL ' #'  `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h      p 600MarketStreet,Suite310 `     h      p Chattanooga,TN37402  l*%*  OPINIONFILED:____________________________________ 2.3 AFFIRMEDALANE.GLENN,JUDGE  8L4: XXp  7XXdXXd7†OPINION#XpX #       ` Thepetitioner,GaryWilliamHolt,hasappealedasofrightfromthedenialofpostconvictionrelief.Heclaimsthatthebystanderjuryprocessutilizedduringhistrialviolatedhisrightstodueprocessandtoanimpartialjury.Baseduponourreviewofthismatter,aswellastheapplicablelaw,weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourt.̛ ` ThepetitionerwasconvictedofarmedrobberyinAugust1977andsentencedtolifeimprisonment.ThisCourtaffirmedhisconvictionandsentenceinMarch1979.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtdeniedpermissiontoappealfurtherinJuly1979.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdeniedcertiorariinOctober1979.ThisappealarosefromHoltsthirdpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.SeeGaryWilliamHoltv.State,No.1089,1989WL   12313(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Feb.15,1989),perm.app.denied(Tenn.1989)  (appealfromdenialofsecondpetitionforpostconvictionrelief);GaryWilliamHoltv.State, T No.20,1989WL5971(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Jan.26,1989)(appealfromdenialofpetitionforwritofhabeascorpusinstatecourts);seealsoHoltv.Reynolds,47F.3d < 1169(6thCir.1995)(appealfromgrantofwritofhabeascorpusinfederalcourt).ThepresentpetitionforpostconvictionreliefwasfiledonJune23,1989.ThepetitionallegedHoltwasdenieddueprocessandtherighttoanimpartialjurythroughthebystanderjurorsummoningprocessemployedathistrial.   FACTSOFTHECASE  )%)  ` AtHoltstrial,thevenirewasexhaustedbeforeacompletejurywasselected.ThetrialcourtdirectedthesherifftoorderadeputynotinvolvedinHoltscasetoselecttwopotentialjurorsasallowedinTenn.CodeAnn.222308(a)(2).Thecourtstated:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Now,wearegoingtohavetostartpickingupjurors,andIwilldirectthesherifftodirectoneofhisofficersnotinvolvedinthetrialofthiscasetopickupsomejurorsandwewillhavethemhereatoneoclock.Sheriff,Iguesstwooughttobeenoughtostartwith,andhavesomeofficernotinvolvedtopickuptwomorepeopleandbringthemhereatoneoclock.    ` TherecordfromHoltstrialdoesnotprovideaclearpictureoftheprocedureused 965; toselectthetwopotentialjurorssummonedaccordingtotheprovisionsofthebystanderjurystatute.However,twopotentialjurorsarrivedatthecourtafterthenoonrecess.Onepotentialjurorwasexcusedformedicalreasons;theother,BeckyDockery,wasseatedonthepanelaftervoirdirewascompleted. ` Threeindividualstestifiedatthepostconvictionhearing:LarryWallace,McMinnCountySheriffatthetimeofHoltstrial;JerryEstes,Holtstrialcounsel;and,Holthimself.WallacestatedhedidnotrecalladeputyselectingbystanderjurorsatHoltstrial.AccordingtoWallace,oneofthedeputysheriffswhoactedasacourtofficerprobablyselectedthetwopotentialjurors.Thesedeputiesworkedforthecourt,eventhoughtheyweretechnicallyemployedbythesheriffsHHHHdepartment.HHDetectiveDavidGuyhandledthemajorityoftheinvestigationinHoltscase,anditwouldhavebeenveryunlikelyforhimtohaveworkedwithanyofthecourtofficersduringaninvestigation. ` EstestestifiedhedidnotrecallifadeputysummonedbystanderjurorsatHoltstrial.EstesfurtherstatedhediscussedvoirdiretacticswithcounselforacodefendantandwithHolt.Ifanyproblemshadarisenduringtheprocess,hewouldhaveraisedtheissueonappeal. ` HolttestifiedherememberedthatSergeantSidneyMatthewswasthedeputysenttosummonjurorsathistrial.HoltfurtherstatedMatthewswasinvolvedintheinvestigationofhiscase.AccordingtoHolt,MatthewshelpedlookforadiscardedlicenseplateintroducedthemorningofHoltstrial.HoltrememberedseeingMatthewswithmudonhisbootsfromtheareaofthesearch.HoltalsoindicatedMatthewstoldhimhewasinvolvedintheinvestigation.Matthewsdidnot,however,testifyatHoltstrial. ` Afterconsideringthetestimonypresentedatthepostconvictionhearing,thetrialcourtdeniedHoltspetitionforrelief.Holttimelyappealed.  HBBH  84:  †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  DISCUSSIONHHOFLAWHH   HH_!HH*XX hXX*8 ` 8 ` (#` (#I.8 ! !Thepostconvictioncourterredinnotfindingthatthe h bystanderjurorselectionprocedureutilizedintheinstantcaseviolatedappellantsconstitutionallysecureddueprocessrights.   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#II.8 ! !Thepostconvictioncourterredinnotfindingthatthetrialcourt  P waswithoutjurisdictiontotrytheinstantcasewhenitfailedtocompletethetrialbyinsuringthedefendanthisSixthAmendmentrighttoafairandimpartialHHjury.   HH̜HHOOHHFF ` Holtarguesthebystanderjurorsummoningprocedureviolatedhisdueprocessrights.Specifically,hearguesthetrialcourterredinrequiringthesherifftodirectadeputytosummontwobystanderjurors.Holtassertsthesheriffandhisdeputies,asinterestedparties,couldnotparticipateinthejuryselectionprocesswithoutinfringinguponHoltsdueprocessrights. ` Whenasufficientnumberofpersonscannotbechosenfromthevenire,Tenn.CodeAnn.222308(a)(2)providesthecourt may,ifthejudgethinksproper,directthesheriff,tosummonasufficientnumber[ofpotentialjurors]tocompletethejur[y]. ` InStatev.Coury,697S.W.2d373(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.app.denied(Tenn. \"! 1985),thisCourtheldthebystanderjuryselectionprocedureemployedattrialwasnotgroundsforreversalwherethedefendantwasnotforcedtoacceptanincompetentjuror.Coury,697S.W.2dat37879.Inanappealfromadenialofawritofhabeascorpus '#' arisingoutofthesamecase,theSixthCircuitaddressedtheconstitutionalityofTennesseesbystanderjurystatute.SeeCouryv.Livesay,868F.2d842(6thCir.1989). X+&+ TheSixthCircuitheldthebystanderjurorselectionprocessusedinCourydidnotdeprive $-t(- thedefendantofanyconstitutionalrights.Coury,868F.2dat845.Inselectingprospective .@*/ jurors,individualswerechoseninarandom,objectivemanner.Further,theinvestigatingofficersinvolvedinCouryscasedidnotpersonallyexecutethejudgesorder,butratherdelegatedthisresponsibilitytoanotherdivisionoftheHHsheriffsHHdepartment,onenotinvolvedininvestigationorprosecutionofanydefendant.Id.Forthesereasons,theSixthCircuit  6p17 МheldP,PunderthefactsofCouryscase,thebystanderjuryprocessasappliedwasnotO†TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  OI†TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  IH†TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  Hunconstitutional.Id. 95; †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   ` Inthecasesubjudice,thereisnoindicationfromtherecordbeforeusthatthe | bystanderjuryprocedureswereappliedunconstitutionally.Wallacetestifiedasheriffsdeputyassignedtothecourtwaslikelythepersonwhoselectedthetwopotentialjurors.Suchapersonwouldnothavebeeninvolvedwiththeinvestigationorprosecutionofcases.Duringvoirdire,Dockery,thebystanderjurorseatedonthepanel,statedshedidnotknowwhatthecasewasabout,norhadanyonespokentoheraboutthecase.AlthoughatthepostconvictionhearingHoltstatedthedeputywhoselectedthetwopotentialjurorswasinvolvedintheinvestigationofhiscase,Holtprovidednoevidenceotherthanhisowntestimony.TherecordshowsMatthewsdidnottestifyatHoltstrial,contradictingHoltsassertionofMatthewssimportancetothecaseagainsthim. ` Anyconflictsintestimony,andotherevidencepresented,areproperlyresolvedbythetrieroffact.Statev.Bland,958S.W.2d651,659(Tenn.1997).Thosefactualfindings ` areconclusiveonappealunlesstheevidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstthem.Statev.Buford,666S.W.2d473,475(Tenn.Crim.App.1983),perm.app.denied(Tenn.  1984).Applyingthefactsofthecasesubjudicetotherulespropoundedinourdecision t!  inStatev.CouryandtheSixthCircuitdecisioninCouryv.Livesay,wefindnoerrorinthe D#" trialcourtsdecisiontodenypostconvictionrelief. ` Thisassignmenthasnomerit.HH6XX  hXXX hX6JJ8 ` 8 ` (#` (#III.8 ! !Thepostconvictioncourterredinrefusingtoallowappellant @,', toarguethathehadreceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselatthetrialofthiscaseonthepremisethatthegroundforreliefhadbeenpreviouslydetermined.L    LOOLLOONLLNLLMJJMJv;JMMNNKKHH ` Here,Holtarguesthetrialcourterredinrefusingtoallowhimtoargueandpresentevidencethathereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrial. ` ThePostConvictionReliefActprovidesagroundforreliefispreviouslydetermined ifacourtofcompetentjurisdictionhasruledonthemeritsafterafullandfairhearing. 8$4: Tenn.CodeAnn.4030112(a)(repealed1995).TheStatecorrectlyassertstheissueofineffectiveassistanceofcounselwasdeterminedduringtheproceedingsforHoltssecondpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Afterconductingahearing,thetrialcourtfoundtheissuewaswithoutmerit.ThisCourtaffirmedthetrialcourtsjudgmentonappeal.Gary  d WilliamHoltv.State,No.1089,1989WL12313(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Feb.15,  0 1989),perm.app.denied(Tenn.1989).Holtargueshisineffectiveassistanceofcounsel    claimdidnotariseuntiltheSixthCircuitsdecisioninCouryv.LivesayQQR,RQQissuedFebruary23, x  1989.Coury,868F.2dat842.However,asHoltspresentpetitionstates,hisclaimarose D  fromthelanguageoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtsdecisioninOliphantv.State,153 ` Tenn.130,135,282S.W.2d206,209(1926)(disqualifyingsheriffanddeputiesfromsummoningjurorsincertaincases),issuedApril10,1926. ` Holtwasaffordedanopportunitytopresenthisconstitutionalclaimsinafullandfairhearinginapreviouspetitionforreliefandisthereforebarredfromdoingsohere.See  \ Housev.State,911S.W.2d705,71013(Tenn.1995)(barringsecondpetitionforpost ( convictionreliefallegingineffectivenessoftrialcounselaspreviouslydeterminedbecausepetitionerreceiveda"fullandfairhearing"onhisoriginalpostconvictionpetition,whichalsoallegedineffectivenessofcounsel). ` Thisassignmenthasnomerit.8 ` 8 ` (#` (#IV.8 ! !Thepostconvictioncourterredinrefusingtoallowthe l*%* appellanttoestablishhisactualinnocenceasapartofhisprooftoshowthathesufferedactualbiasinthejurorselectionutilizedathistrial.    E ` Here,Holtarguesthetrialcourterredinrefusingtoallowhimtopresenttestimonyconcerningtheevidencesupportinghisconviction.AccordingtoHolt,heofferedthistestimonytoestablishhisinnocenceinordertoovercomeanyproceduraldefault.Holthasfailedtociteaspecificportionoftherecordinwhichhefindserror.Accordingly,hehaswaivedconsiderationoftheissueinthisappeal.Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.R.10(b);Statev. 7P28 Killebrew,760S.W.2d228,231(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.app.denied(Tenn.1988). 84: Ї ` AsforHoltsclaimhistestimonywasofferedtoestablishhisactualinnocencetoovercomeaproceduraldefault,theStatecorrectlypointsoutanappealfromadenialforpostconvictionreliefisnottheproperavenueforthisclaim.SeeRustv.Zent,17F.3d H 155,162(6thCir.1994)(statingfederalcourtmaygranthabeasreliefifpetitionerpresentsextraordinarycasewherebyconstitutionalviolationresultedinconvictionofinnocentdefendant,insuchcaseproceduralfailuresinstatecourtmaybeoverlooked). ` Thisassignmenthasnomerit. ` Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthedecisionofthecourtbelow. (#  ,  X XXX  `     h     ________________________________________ `     h     ALANE.GLENN,JUDGECONCUR:____________________________________JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE____________________________________JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE ` #X XX X L#