ÿWPClT £`’Âäk…·¡µƒuþüá•1yùi ö¤¢7âŽéyé·æýD Ù#>×ó‘òåcµF냛zØ™;–¼Ê;Y.{ØY%Pæ¹öH~Ô0ÙÎëf¾íòon£4œÀ8è0*¨œ|ïÐn™êÃqÄÀ]Hk8ë &oß‚l lö’_gÏ„Ÿ)þ˜uJS¾±ƒý‚œ“%kš|qç:к™B\`Í{(;¢P'!»l.rêfw;Ÿ¸ÎÀ@ÙAd€›‡=ÐGOY”˜;PÃH×xJ@;÷L‡zH™AbÊe9æ«òQ -‡Å8än{@@aúƒ³èO7?°¾n2L­qÒÚtÎsÐptcT¿¶ ö6BÁ5~Mþº8ªip€ a ¢ïÕm…äEg c)ÿ­Bògýn¶"mÊŒ{™üª>ß"ýE8$|0ÒÉxÞˆ¼¦<å@¹-(âÀqZÉVÙd+ݾ^7KiaÃß+²ðÁ+êqÈ`CpQ³¼Þ5 Š|gæý¥!kfòêß9«A¦òD·NO‡`UÎ 2Ø\³R=ÏaxºM³'€ |„]ËFé AdÆÍjWyDeÚ  ü|ö~Ò;|uþ奈Í…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0 D8 l| lèÚTÊ.ºø²eË!g0%ý—(U:”.U:Î.Ú/U:â1Ê2U:æ7» 8U:Û:;U:.@ Bh@e…@U:êCý$DU:!Jg[JU:ÂMüM»NU:¿PùP D3RU:IRIR 0DƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒRƒR AOÇRÆSS 0DÜS D/ T BOT˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MSÈðððÈð0nLÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- FUGHUIDMeNOEPQRÓ€ýhµ&3|x](v(2„°$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XM°XXXÔÔ€ôò¦ôXXM°Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó bÝ ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xs~ XXXÔÔ€ô½ô XXs~Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€State€raised€the€defense€of€waiver€in€its€answer€to€Appellantððs€petition€for€post„Ð `  Ðconviction€relief.€€However,€for€some€inexplicable€reason,€neither€the€State€nor€the€post„conviction€courtÏaddressed€the€waiver€defense€during€the€hearing€on€Appellantððs€petition.€€Rather,€both€the€State€and€theÏcourt€addressed€the€merits€of€Appellantððs€claims.€€Therefore,€we€also€chose€to€address€the€merits€of€thisÏclaim. bÝ ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XýÆXXXÔÔ€ôB¨ôXXýÆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€State€raised€the€defense€of€waiver€in€its€answer€to€Appellantððs€petition€for€post„Ð `  Ðconviction€relief.€€However,€for€some€inexplicable€reason,€neither€the€State€nor€the€post„conviction€courtÏaddressed€the€waiver€defense€during€the€hearing€on€Appellantððs€petition.€€Rather,€both€the€State€and€theÏcourt€addressed€the€merits€of€Appellantððs€claims.€€Therefore,€we€also€chose€to€address€the€merits€of€thisÏclaim. ÐÝ ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XýÆXXXÔÔ€ôB¨ôXXýÆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€resentencing€provided€that€release€eligibility€for€aÐ `  Ðcareer€offender€occurred€after€service€of€60%€of€the€sentence€less€applicable€sentencing€credits.€€òòSeeóóÐ  ¾ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(f)€(1990).€€However,€the€resentencing€court€applied€the€statute€in€existenceÏat€the€time€of€the€original€sentencing€that€provided€that€release€eligibility€for€a€persistent€offender€occurredÏafter€service€of€40%€of€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(f)€(1982). ÀÝ ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XýÆXXXÔÔ€ôB¨ôXXýÆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€contends€that€under€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€503€S.W.2d€109€(Tenn.€1973),€there€is€aÐ `  Ðpresumption€of€vindictiveness€whenever€consecutive€sentencing€is€imposed€for€the€first€time€uponÏresentencing.€€While€we€agree€that€òòWilliamsóó€established€a€general€rule€that€imposition€of€consecutiveÐ Ü | Ðsentences€for€the€first€time€at€resentencing€usually€carries€a€presumption€of€vindictiveness,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€atÐ š : Ð111ð!ð12,€we€do€not€agree€that€òòWilliamsóó€established€a€per€se€rule€that€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencesÐ X ø Ðfor€the€first€time€at€resentencing€always€carries€a€presumption€of€vindictiveness€regardless€of€the€uniqueÏcircumstances€of€each€individual€case.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòWilliamsóó€that€there€was€aÐ Ô t Ðpresumption€of€vindictiveness€when€consecutive€sentences€were€imposed€for€the€first€time€at€resentencingÏbecause€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing€tripled€the€total€length€of€the€defendantððs€sentence.€€òòId.óóÐ Pð Ðat€112.€€As€previously€stated,€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€in€this€case€did€notÏincrease€the€total€length€of€Appellantððs€sentence.€€Thus,€òòWilliamsóó€is€clearly€distinguishable€from€this€case. °Ý ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XýÆXXXÔÔ€ôB¨ôXXýÆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€briefly€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€follow€the€proper€statutory€guidelines€when€itÐ `  Ðdetermined€the€length€of€Appellantððs€sentences€and€when€it€imposed€consecutive€sentencing.€€However,ÏAppellant€cannot€seek€review€of€the€length€or€manner€of€serving€sentences€in€a€post€convictionÏproceeding.€€òòSeeóó€òòAndrea€Jones€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9603„CR„00084,€1997€WL€68330,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð š : ÐApp.,€Jackson,€Feb.€20,€1997)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(a)€(1989)). Ý ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XýÆXXXÔÔ€ôB¨ôXXýÆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€in€Appellantððs€argument€on€this€issue,€he€makes€a€somewhat€vague€allegation€thatÐ `  Ðhis€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€by€failing€to€object€to€consecutive€sentencingÏon€judicial€vindictiveness€grounds.€€However,€we€have€already€determined€that€there€is€no€proof€thatÏjudicial€vindictiveness€played€any€part€in€resentencing.€€When€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€onÏthe€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€or€she€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€orÏthe€advice€given€was€below€ð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxterÐ  ¶ Ðv.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€he€or€she€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€ð ðactuallyÐ Ô t Ðhad€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.Ct.€2052,Ð ’2 Ð2067ð!ð68,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€€Because€Appellantððs€judicial€vindictiveness€argument€has€no€merit,ÏAppellantððs€trial€counsel€was€not€deficient€in€failing€to€make€the€argument€in€the€trial€court. [Ý ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XýÆXXXÔÔ€ôB¨ôXXýÆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€based€its€decision€to€classify€him€as€aÐ `  Ðcareer€offender€on€the€four€convictions€that€were€vacated€and€reentered€after€his€conviction€for€the€sixÏoffenses€in€this€case.€€Specifically,€Appellant€contends€that€the€four€convictions€were€not€ð ðprior€felonyÏconvictionsðð€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„108€because€they€were€not€reentered€untilÏafter€the€commission€of€the€six€offenses€in€this€case€in€1984.€€However,€as€noted€by€the€post„convictionÏcourt,€the€amended€notice€contained€eleven€other€previous€felony€convictions€that€justify€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€that€Appellant€was€a€career€offender.€ò òó ó ]Ý ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XýÆXXXÔÔ€ôB¨ôXXýÆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€Appellant€claimed€both€in€his€post„conviction€petition€and€during€the€hearing€on€hisÐ `  Ðpetition€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€object€to€the€filing€of€the€amended€notice€of€intentÏto€seek€enhanced€punishment.€€This€claim€would€of€course€be€cognizable€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€ÏHowever,€on€appeal,€Appellant€has€not€argued€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€this€regard.€€In€fact,ÏAppellantððs€argument€about€the€filing€of€the€amended€notice€of€enhancement€only€makes€one€extremelyÏobscure€reference€to€his€trial€counselððs€conduct.€€This€obscure€reference€is€completely€insufficient€to€raiseÏthe€issue€of€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€on€appeal. óÝ ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XýÆXXXÔÔ€ôB¨ôXXýÆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝSection€40„35„202€provides€in€relevant€part:Ð `  Ðà0 ` àIf€the€district€attorney€general€believes€that€a€defendant€should€be€sentenced€as€a€multiple,Ïpersistent€or€career€offender,€the€district€attorney€general€shall€file€a€statement€thereof€with€theÏcourt€and€defense€counsel€not€less€than€ten€(10)€days€before€trial€or€acceptance€of€a€guilty€plea;€Ïprovided,€that€notice€may€be€waived€by€the€defendant€in€writing€with€the€consent€of€the€districtÏattorney€general€and€the€court€accepting€the€plea.€€€€Such€statement,€which€shall€not€be€madeÏknown€to€the€jury€determining€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant€on€the€primary€offense,€mustÏset€forth€the€nature€of€the€prior€felony€convictions,€the€dates€of€the€convictions€and€the€identity€ofÏthe€courts€of€the€convictions.€€€Ð ` €%` €% ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a)€(1997).€€Similarly,€Rule€12.3€provides€in€relevant€part:Ìà0 ` àWritten€statements€of€the€district€attorney€giving€notice€that€the€defendant€should€be€sentenced€toÏan€enhanced€punishment,€for€an€especially€aggravated€offense,€and/or€as€a€persistent€offenderÏshall€be€filed€not€less€than€ten€(10)€days€prior€to€trial.€€If€the€notice€is€filed€later€than€this€time,€theÏtrial€judge€shall€grant€the€defendant,€upon€motion,€a€reasonable€continuance€of€the€trial.Ð ` €%` €% ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(a).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÐÝ ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xs~ XXXÔÔ€ô½ô XXs~Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€resentencing€provided€that€release€eligibility€for€aÐ `  Ðcareer€offender€occurred€after€service€of€60%€of€the€sentence€less€applicable€sentencing€credits.€€òòSeeóóÐ  ¾ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(f)€(1990).€€However,€the€resentencing€court€applied€the€statute€in€existenceÏat€the€time€of€the€original€sentencing€that€provided€that€release€eligibility€for€a€persistent€offender€occurredÏafter€service€of€40%€of€the€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(f)€(1982).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÀÝ ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xs~ XXXÔÔ€ô½ô XXs~Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€contends€that€under€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€503€S.W.2d€109€(Tenn.€1973),€there€is€aÐ `  Ðpresumption€of€vindictiveness€whenever€consecutive€sentencing€is€imposed€for€the€first€time€uponÏresentencing.€€While€we€agree€that€òòWilliamsóó€established€a€general€rule€that€imposition€of€consecutiveÐ Ü | Ðsentences€for€the€first€time€at€resentencing€usually€carries€a€presumption€of€vindictiveness,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€atÐ š : Ð111ð!ð12,€we€do€not€agree€that€òòWilliamsóó€established€a€per€se€rule€that€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencesÐ X ø Ðfor€the€first€time€at€resentencing€always€carries€a€presumption€of€vindictiveness€regardless€of€the€uniqueÏcircumstances€of€each€individual€case.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòWilliamsóó€that€there€was€aÐ Ô t Ðpresumption€of€vindictiveness€when€consecutive€sentences€were€imposed€for€the€first€time€at€resentencingÏbecause€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentencing€tripled€the€total€length€of€the€defendantððs€sentence.€€òòId.óóÐ Pð Ðat€112.€€As€previously€stated,€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€in€this€case€did€notÏincrease€the€total€length€of€Appellantððs€sentence.€€Thus,€òòWilliamsóó€is€clearly€distinguishable€from€this€case.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ±Ý ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xs~ XXXÔÔ€ô½ô XXs~Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€briefly€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€follow€the€proper€statutory€guidelines€when€itÐ `  Ðdetermined€the€length€of€Appellantððs€sentences€and€when€it€imposed€consecutive€sentencing.€€However,ÏAppellant€cannot€seek€review€of€the€length€or€manner€of€serving€sentences€in€a€post€convictionÏproceeding.€€òòSeeóó€òòAndrea€Jones€v.€Stateóó,€No.€020C01„9603„CR„00084,€1997€WL€68330,€at€*1€(Tenn.Ð š : ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€20,€1997)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(a)€(1989)).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xs~ XXXÔÔ€ô½ô XXs~Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€in€Appellantððs€argument€on€this€issue,€he€makes€a€somewhat€vague€allegation€thatÐ `  Ðhis€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€by€failing€to€object€to€consecutive€sentencingÏon€judicial€vindictiveness€grounds.€€However,€we€have€already€determined€that€there€is€no€proof€thatÏjudicial€vindictiveness€played€any€part€in€resentencing.€€When€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€onÏthe€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€or€she€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€orÏthe€advice€given€was€below€ð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxterÐ  ¶ Ðv.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€he€or€she€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€ð ðactuallyÐ Ô t Ðhad€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.Ct.€2052,Ð ’2 Ð2067ð!ð68,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€€Because€Appellantððs€judicial€vindictiveness€argument€has€no€merit,ÏAppellantððs€trial€counsel€was€not€deficient€in€failing€to€make€the€argument€in€the€trial€court.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d [Ý ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€!Xs~ XXXÔÔ€!ô½ô XXs~Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€based€its€decision€to€classify€him€as€aÐ `  Ðcareer€offender€on€the€four€convictions€that€were€vacated€and€reentered€after€his€conviction€for€the€sixÏoffenses€in€this€case.€€Specifically,€Appellant€contends€that€the€four€convictions€were€not€ð ðprior€felonyÏconvictionsðð€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„108€because€they€were€not€reentered€untilÏafter€the€commission€of€the€six€offenses€in€this€case€in€1984.€€However,€as€noted€by€the€post„convictionÏcourt,€the€amended€notice€contained€eleven€other€previous€felony€convictions€that€justify€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€that€Appellant€was€a€career€offender.€ò òó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular óÝ ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€#Xs~ XXXÔÔ€#ô½ô XXs~Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝSection€40„35„202€provides€in€relevant€part:Ð `  Ðà0 ` àIf€the€district€attorney€general€believes€that€a€defendant€should€be€sentenced€as€a€multiple,Ïpersistent€or€career€offender,€the€district€attorney€general€shall€file€a€statement€thereof€with€theÏcourt€and€defense€counsel€not€less€than€ten€(10)€days€before€trial€or€acceptance€of€a€guilty€plea;€Ïprovided,€that€notice€may€be€waived€by€the€defendant€in€writing€with€the€consent€of€the€districtÏattorney€general€and€the€court€accepting€the€plea.€€€€Such€statement,€which€shall€not€be€madeÏknown€to€the€jury€determining€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant€on€the€primary€offense,€mustÏset€forth€the€nature€of€the€prior€felony€convictions,€the€dates€of€the€convictions€and€the€identity€ofÏthe€courts€of€the€convictions.€€€Ð ` €%` €% ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a)€(1997).€€Similarly,€Rule€12.3€provides€in€relevant€part:Ìà0 ` àWritten€statements€of€the€district€attorney€giving€notice€that€the€defendant€should€be€sentenced€toÏan€enhanced€punishment,€for€an€especially€aggravated€offense,€and/or€as€a€persistent€offenderÏshall€be€filed€not€less€than€ten€(10)€days€prior€to€trial.€€If€the€notice€is€filed€later€than€this€time,€theÏtrial€judge€shall€grant€the€defendant,€upon€motion,€a€reasonable€continuance€of€the€trial.Ð ` €%` €% ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(a).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ]Ý ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€%Xs~ XXXÔÔ€%ô½ô XXs~Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€Appellant€claimed€both€in€his€post„conviction€petition€and€during€the€hearing€on€hisÐ `  Ðpetition€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€object€to€the€filing€of€the€amended€notice€of€intentÏto€seek€enhanced€punishment.€€This€claim€would€of€course€be€cognizable€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€ÏHowever,€on€appeal,€Appellant€has€not€argued€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€this€regard.€€In€fact,ÏAppellantððs€argument€about€the€filing€of€the€amended€notice€of€enhancement€only€makes€one€extremelyÏobscure€reference€to€his€trial€counselððs€conduct.€€This€obscure€reference€is€completely€insufficient€to€raiseÏthe€issue€of€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€on€appeal.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ±Ý ƒ ‹$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€(Xs~ XXXÔÔ€(ô½ô XXs~Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€briefly€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€follow€the€proper€statutory€guidelines€when€itÐ `  Ðdetermined€the€length€of€Appellantððs€sentences€and€when€it€imposed€consecutive€sentencing.€€However,ÏAppellant€cannot€seek€review€of€the€length€or€manner€of€serving€sentences€in€a€post€convictionÏproceeding.€€òòSeeóó€òòAndrea€Jones€v.€Stateóó,€No.€020C01„9603„CR„00084,€1997€WL€68330,€at€*1€(Tenn.Ð š : ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€20,€1997)€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(a)€(1989)).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€+XM°XXXÔÔ€+îú¤ îX+XM°ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€+Ü  î+îú¤ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€2,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôò¦ô +ÜÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñRññMñ›ñMññRñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š²ðŠXXÔÔ€ŠÓ2ŠŠŠ²ðÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€†XXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñRñßr€)*<,(j 8 `€€@E<f  tt0"t` ¨Ørß›ñRñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓJAY€WILL€KILBY,à h àà À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9801„CR„00040Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àKNOX€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€RICHARD€BAUMGARTNERó óÐ Xø  Ðò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellee.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Post„Conviction€Relief)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌMARK€E.€STEPHENSà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ( È ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  !À ÐÌPAULA€R.€VOSS€(on€appeal)à À àà  àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÐ #° ÐJOHN€HALSTEAD€(at€trial)à À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ $¨ ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ %  Ð1209€Euclid€Avenueà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243Ð ø%˜ ÐKnoxville,€TN€€37921Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€L.€JOLLEYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCity„County€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKnoxville,€TN€€37902ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x5,-S ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„°ž„ŠŠÓ2ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†ŠÓ2Š„„°ž| #ÔÐ `  ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÌà ` àOn€October€31,€1991,€Appellant€Jay€Will€Kilby€filed€a€petition€for€post„¼conviction€relief.€€On€January€15,€1998,€the€post„conviction€court€conducted€aÏhearing€on€the€petition.€€That€same€day,€the€post„conviction€court€dismissed€theÏpetition.€€Appellant€challenges€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€when€it€found€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€imposed€consecutive€sentences€for€Appellantððs€six€underlyingÏfelony€convictions€following€the€reversal€of€Appellantððs€six€habitual€criminalÏconvictions;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€when€it€found€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€allowed€the€State€to€file€an€amended€notice€of€intent€to€seekÏenhanced€punishment€prior€to€resentencing.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓlÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÌà@!!'®àò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óˆÐ "¤ ÐÌà ` àOn€September€30,€1987,€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€three€counts€of€firstÏdegree€burglary€and€three€counts€of€grand€larceny.€€Each€of€these€counts€was€theÏtriggering€offense€for€one€of€six€charges€of€being€a€habitual€criminal.€€BecauseÏAppellant€elected€to€have€a€jury€trial€on€the€six€counts€of€being€a€habitual€criminal,Ïthe€trial€court€deferred€imposing€sentence€for€the€six€convictions€for€the€triggeringÏoffenses.€€On€October€1,€1987,€a€Knox€County€jury€convicted€Appellant€of€all€sixÏcounts€of€being€a€habitual€criminal.€€On€November€12,€1987,€the€trial€courtÏimposed€six€concurrent€life€sentences€for€the€habitual€criminal€convictions.€€TheÏtrial€court€imposed€these€sentences€œwithñOñ€ñOñout›€imposing€sentences€for€the€sixÏtriggering€convictions.€€€This€Court€subsequently€upheld€Appellantððs€convictionsÏin€òòState€v.€Kilbyóó,€763€S.W.2d€389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ð T9ô/1 Їà ` àOn€July€20,€1990,€Appellant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€inÏwhich€he€challenged€his€habitual€criminal€convictions.€€On€March€21,€1991,€theÏtrial€court€set€aside€Appellantððs€habitual€criminal€convictions€and€scheduled€theÏcase€for€resentencing€for€the€six€triggering€convictions.€€On€March€26,€1991,€theÏState€filed€an€amended€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment.€€TheÏrecord€indicates€that€Appellant€did€not€object€to€the€amended€notice.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€conducted€the€resentencing€hearing€on€May€6,€1991.€€ThatÏsame€day,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Appellant€as€a€career€offender€to€fifteen€yearsÏfor€each€of€the€three€first€degree€burglary€convictions€and€to€ten€years€for€eachÏof€the€three€grand€larceny€convictions.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€these€sixÏsentences€to€run€consecutively.€€Appellant€filed€notice€of€appeal€on€June€10,Ï1991.€€In€his€appeal,€Appellant€contended€that€resentencing€for€the€six€triggeringÏconvictions€violated€principles€of€double€jeopardy.€ÌÌà ` àOn€October€31,€1991,€while€Appellantððs€direct€appeal€was€still€pending,ÏAppellant€filed€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€at€issue€in€this€case.€€In€thisÏpetition,€Appellant€contended€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€file€aÏdirect€appeal,€that€resentencing€violated€principles€of€double€jeopardy,€and€thatÏhe€was€the€victim€of€judicial€vindictiveness.ÌÌà ` àThis€Court€subsequently€concluded€that€Appellantððs€appeal€had€no€meritÏbecause€the€facts€of€the€case€did€not€implicate€double€jeopardy€considerations.€ÏòòState€v.€Jay€Will€Kilbyóó,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„00332,€1992€WL€97086,€at€*1ð!ð2Ð ð5,. Ðâ â(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€12,€1992).€€In€so€holding,€this€Court€noted€thatÐ à7€.0 ÐAppellant€ð ðdoes€not€contest€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€theseÏsentences.€€He€contests€their€imposition.ðð€€òòId.óó,€1992€WL€97086,€at€*1.Ð P ð Ðâ âÌà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€petition€in€this€caseÏon€January€15,€1998.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€post„conviction€courtÏfound€that€the€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€claim€was€moot,€that€there€was€ampleÏevidence€to€support€consecutive€sentences,€and€that€there€was€no€evidence€ofÏany€judicial€vindictiveness.€ÌÌà@ ®àò òII.€€IMPOSITION€OF€CONSECUTIVE€SENTENCESó óˆÐ Ðp ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€œñPñthe€ñPñpost„conviction›€court€erred€when€it€found€thatÏthe€trial€court€properly€imposed€six€consecutive€sentences€for€his€underlyingÏfelony€convictions€following€the€reversal€of€his€six€habitual€criminal€convictions.€ÏSpecifically,€Appellant€argues€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€inappropriateÏbecause€it€is€the€result€of€judicial€vindictiveness.ÌÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€Appellant€has€waived€this€issue.€€When€Appellant€filedÏhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„¼112€provided,€in€relevant€part:ÌñEñÓÓñEñà0 ` à(1)€A€ground€for€relief€is€ð ðwaivedðð€if€the€petitioner€knowingly€andÏunderstandingly€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€any€proceedingÏbefore€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€haveÏbeen€presented.€€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à(2)€There€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€a€ground€for€relief€not€raised€inÏany€such€proceeding€which€was€held€was€waived.€€ñFñÐ ` T$` T$ ÐñFñÌñEñÓ ÓñEñTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(1990).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÏheld€that€ð ðthe€rebuttable€presumption€of€waiver€is€not€overcome€by€an€allegationÐ è8ˆ/1 Ðthat€the€petitioner€did€not€personally,€knowingly,€and€understandingly€fail€to€raiseÏa€ground€for€relief.ðð€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.1996).€€Rather,Ð P ð Ðð ð[w]aiver€in€the€post-conviction€context€is€to€be€determined€by€an€objectiveÏstandard€under€which€a€petitioner€is€bound€by€the€action€or€inaction€of€hisÏattorney.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Clearly,€Appellantððs€claim€of€judicial€vindictiveness€was€availableÐ  À Ðwhen€Appellant€filed€his€previous€appeal.€€In€addition,€Appellant€has€failed€toÏmake€any€effort€to€rebut€the€presumption€that€he€has€waived€this€claim.€€However,Ïwe€conclude€that€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€even€on€the€merits.ñMñ׃ ×ñMññMñ׃ ×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ð  ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€he€is€a€victim€of€judicial€vindictiveness€becauseÏafter€the€six€habitual€criminal€convictions€for€which€he€received€concurrent€lifeÏsentences€were€set€aside,€the€trial€court€imposed€six€consecutive€sentences€forÏthe€underlying€felony€convictions.€€Essentially,€Appellant€claims€that€by€imposingÏconsecutive€sentences,€the€trial€court€punished€Appellant€for€exercising€his€rightÏto€challenge€his€habitual€criminal€convictions€through€the€post„conviction€process.ÌÌà ` àIn€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711,€724ð!ð25,€89€S.Ct.€2072,€2080,Ð `(  Ð23€L.Ed.2d€656€(1969),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€it€is€a€violationÏof€basic€due€process€to€punish€a€person€because€he€has€done€what€the€lawÏplainly€allows.€€The€Supreme€Court€stated€that€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€theÏFourteenth€Amendment€prevents€increased€sentences€which€are€actually€or€likelyÏâ âmotivated€by€a€vindictive€desire€to€punish€a€defendant€for€the€exercise€of€aÐ 2°(* Ðstatutory€or€procedural€right.€€òòId.óó,€395€U.S.€at€723ð!ð24,€89€S.Ct.€at€2080.€€TheÐ `  ÐòòPearceóó€Court€stated:Ð P ð Ðâ âñGñÓÓñGñà0 ` àDue€process€of€law,€then,€requires€that€vindictiveness€against€a€defendantÏfor€having€successfully€attacked€his€first€conviction€must€play€no€part€in€theÏsentence€he€receives€after€a€new€trial.€€And€since€the€fear€of€suchÏvindictiveness€may€unconstitutionally€deter€a€defendantððs€exercise€of€theÏright€to€appeal€or€collaterally€attack€his€first€conviction,€due€process€alsoÏrequires€that€a€defendant€be€freed€of€apprehension€of€such€a€retaliatoryÏmotivation€on€the€part€of€the€sentencing€judge.€€ñHñÐ ` T$` T$ ÐñHñÌñGñÓ©*ÓñGñòòId.óó,€395€U.S.€at€725,€89€S.Ct.€at€2080.€€To€prevent€vindictiveness€from€enteringÐ    Ðinto€the€decision€and€to€allay€any€fear€on€the€part€of€a€defendant€that€anÏincreased€sentence€is€the€product€of€vindictiveness,€the€Court€fashioned€aÏprophylactic€rule€that€ð ðwhenever€a€judge€imposes€a€more€severe€sentence€uponÏa€defendant€after€a€new€trial,€the€reasons€for€his€doing€so€must€affirmativelyÏappear.ðð€€òòId.óó,€395€U.S.€at€726,€89€S.Ct.€at€2081.€€€Otherwise,€a€presumptionÐ °P Ðarises€that€a€greater€sentence€has€been€imposed€for€a€vindictive€purposeð"ðaÏpresumption€that€must€be€rebutted€by€ð ðððobjective€information€.€.€.€justifying€theÏincreased€sentence.ðððð€€òòTexas€v.€McCulloughóó,€475€U.S.€134,€142,€106€S.Ct.€976,Ð €$  Ð981,€89€L.Ed.2d€104€(1986)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Goodwinóó,€457€U.S.€368,Ð p& Ð374,€102€S.Ct.€2485,€2489,€73€L.Ed.2d€74€(1982)).€€ÌÌà ` àIn€òòAlabama€v.€Smithóó,€490€U.S.€794,€109€S.Ct.€2201,€1021€L.Ed.2d€865Ð @,à"$ Ð(1989),€the€Supreme€Court€limited€the€application€of€€òòPearceóó€to€circumstances€inÐ 0.Ð$& Ðwhich€there€is€a€ð ðððreasonable€likelihoodðð€that€the€increase€in€sentence€is€theÏproduct€of€actual€vindictiveness€on€the€part€of€the€sentencing€authority.ðð€€òòId.óó,€490Ð 2°(* ÐU.S.€at€799,€109€S.€Ct.€at€2205.€€ð ðWhere€there€is€no€such€reasonable€likelihood,Ïthe€burden€remains€upon€the€defendant€to€prove€actual€vindictiveness.ðð€€€òòId.óó,€490Ð ð5,. ÐU.S.€at€799,€109€S.€Ct.€at€2205.ÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€record€does€not€support€Appellantððs€allegation€thatÏhe€is€a€victim€of€judicial€vindictiveness.€€First,€we€note€that€Appellant€did€notÏreceive€a€longer€sentence€after€resentencing.€€When€Appellant€was€sentencedÏin€1987€to€six€concurrent€life€sentences,€the€relevant€statute€provided€that€heÏwould€be€eligible€for€release€after€serving€thirty€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„¼501(f)€(1982).€€When€Appellant€was€resentenced€in€1991€to€a€total€sentence€ofÏseventy„five€years€at€40%€release€eligibility,ñMñ׃×ñMññMñ׃×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€effect€was€that€Appellant€wouldÐ    Ðbe€eligible€for€release€after€serving€thirty€years.€€Thus,€Appellant€has€not€receivedÏa€longer€sentence€after€resentencing.ñMñ׃F×ñMññMñ׃F×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€addition,€we€note€that€even€if€the€newÐ à€ Ðsentence€could€somehow€be€classified€as€a€longer€sentence,€there€is€noÏreasonable€likelihood€that€the€increased€sentence€was€the€product€of€actualÏvindictiveness€on€the€part€of€the€resentencing€court.€€In€this€case,€Judge€John€J.ÏDuncan,€Jr.,€imposed€the€original€sentences€for€the€habitual€criminal€convictions.€ÏA€different€judge,€Judge€Randall€E.€Nichols,€imposed€the€new€sentences€for€theÏsix€underlying€felony€convictions.€€Thus,€there€is€no€reasonable€likelihood€thatÏJudge€Nichols€imposed€the€new€sentences€out€of€actual€vindictiveness.€€òòSeeóóÐ p& ÐòòState€v.€John€L.€Goodwin,€IIIóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CR„00013,€1997€WL€409484,€atÐ `(  Ð*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€23,€1997)€(stating€that€because€differentÐ P*ð " Ðjudges€presided€over€the€original€sentencing€hearing€and€the€resentencingÏhearing,€ð ðany€risk€of€vindictiveness€by€the€trial€judge€being€confronted€byÏresentencing€is€nonexistentðð).€€Therefore,€the€burden€remains€on€Appellant€toÏshow€that€the€new€sentences€were€the€product€of€actual€vindictiveness.€ÏAppellant€has€failed€to€identify€any€evidence€that€actual€vindictiveness€played€anyÏpart€in€resentencingñMññNñœ×ƒ×ñNññNñ׃'×ñNññMññMñ׃×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€and€we€can€find€nothing€in€the€record€that€would€support€aÐ °  Ðfinding€of€actual€vindictiveness.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ñMñ׃F×ñMññMñ׃F×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð    ÐÌà@ç ç ®àò òIII.€€AMENDED€NOTICE€OF€ENHANCEMENT€FACTORSó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€when€it€found€thatÏthe€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€State€to€file€an€amended€notice€of€intent€toÏseek€enhanced€punishment€prior€to€Appellantððs€resentencing.€ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€on€February€9,€1987,€the€State€filed€a€notice€ofÏintent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€that€listed€eleven€of€Appellantððs€prior€felonyÏconvictions.€€Eight€of€these€listed€convictions€were€vacated€in€1990,€but€AppellantÏsubsequently€reentered€guilty€pleas€for€four€of€the€vacated€convictions€in€1990.€ÏOn€March€26,€1991,€the€State€filed€an€amended€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhancedÐ P,ð"$ Ðpunishment.€€The€amended€notice€listed€fifteen€of€Appellantððs€felony€convictions,Ïincluding€the€three€convictions€listed€on€the€original€notice€that€were€neverÏvacated,€the€four€convictions€listed€on€the€original€notice€that€were€later€vacatedÏand€then€reentered,€and€eight€convictions€that€were€not€listed€in€the€originalÏnotice.€€Appellant€essentially€claims€that€because€the€State€did€not€include€eightÏof€these€convictions€in€its€original€notice,€Appellant€was€prevented€fromÏconsidering€them€when€he€decided€to€plead€guilty€to€the€six€underlying€feloniesÏin€this€case€in€1987.ñMñ׃×ñMññMñ׃ ×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ð  ÐÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€Appellant€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€raise€itÏin€his€previous€appeal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(1990);€òòHouseóó,€œ911ñQñÐ À` ÐS.W.2dñQñ›€at€714.€€Clearly,€Appellantððs€claim€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowedÏthe€filing€of€the€amended€notice€of€enhancement€factors€was€available€whenÏAppellant€filed€his€previous€appeal.€€In€addition,€Appellant€has€failed€to€make€anyÏeffort€to€rebut€the€presumption€that€he€has€waived€this€issue.ÌÌà ` àIn€addition€to€waiver,€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€claim€becauseÏthis€claim€is€inappropriate€for€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€Appellant€contendsÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€allowed€the€State€to€file€the€amended€noticeÏbecause€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„202€and€Rule€12.3€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€require€the€State€to€give€notice€of€intentÏto€seek€enhanced€punishment€at€least€ten€days€before€acceptance€of€a€guiltyÐ 2°(* Ðplea€or€trial.ñMñ׃×ñMññMñ׃"×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,€Appellant€contends€that€under€section€40„35„202€andÐ `  ÐRule€12.3,€the€State€should€not€have€been€allowed€to€file€the€amended€noticeÏbecause€it€was€not€filed€more€than€ten€days€before€he€pled€guilty€to€the€sixÏunderlying€felonies€in€this€case.€€However,€in€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€919€S.W.2d€323Ð 0Ð Ð(Tenn.€1996),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated€that€the€notice€requirementÏof€Rule€12.3€is€not€constitutionally€mandated.€€òòId.óó€at€331.€€Post„conviction€reliefÐ °  Ðis€only€available€when€a€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€theÏabridgment€of€a€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€(1990).€ÏBecause€Appellantððs€claim€is€not€based€on€the€alleged€abridgment€of€aÏconstitutional€right,€this€claim€can€not€be€asserted€in€a€post„convictionÏproceeding.ñMñ׃² ×ñMññMñ׃$² ×ñMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À` ÐÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€post„conviction€courtððs€dismissal€of€Appellantððs€petition€isÏAFFIRMED.ñIñÌÌà  àà  àà  àà  àà  àÌÌÌ̹ñIñ¹Ó  ÓñIñà ` àÌÌñIñÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ h' ЇÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌL.T.€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGE