ÿWPC# … %Vw@\ 0ÜœU:x 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u©U, 0dJU,® BÚU*÷B)!DCJ AMÇÚÞ¡¨ D3'v~ZvÓØ 0@«! AOë!Æ:" 0D# D/D# Bs#X EEEDÓ€(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular5tt 3|x%(Ð(3X8$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€KêXXdêXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" 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 d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMarch€20,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€all€the€claims€in€the€instant€petition€were€raised€in€the€earlierÏpetition,€the€only€common€issue€raised€on€appeal€from€the€dismissal€of€the€firstÏpetition€was€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€advise€the€appellant€that€the€fourÏconvictions€could€be€used€against€him€to€enhance€punishment€for€later€arisingÏconvictions.€€This€claim€was€found€to€be€without€merit.€€òòIdóó.Ì žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Therefore,€although€the€State€correctly€notes€that€the€appellant'sÏpetition€does€not€comply€with€the€requirements€of€40„30„104(8)€and€(10)Ï(1990)(repealed€1995),€which€sections€mandated€that€the€petition€describe€"allÏother€applications€for€relief€previously€filed"€and€also€state€"[f]acts€establishingÏthe€grounds€on€which€the€claim€for€relief€is€based,€[and]€whether€they€have€beenÏpreviously€presented€to€any€court€...€,"€the€post„conviction€court€could€not€haveÏsummarily€dismissed€the€appellant's€petition€on€this€basis€if€the€petition€had€setÏforth€a€colorable€claim€for€relief.Ì""""'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€Ùò òßL€&'%;+'h|` | `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àDECEMBERÏSESSION,€1995ÌÌó óÌÌÌò òDARRELL€LYNN€WESTó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9402„CR„00075Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOXÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€RAY€L.ÏJENKINS,€JudgeÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌLeslie€M.€Jeffressà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ1776€Riverview€Towerà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ900€S.€Gay€Streetà àÌKnoxville,€TN€€37902à àà àà àCharlette€Reed€ChambersÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRandall€E.€NicholsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àZane€ScarlettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37902ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÌÌÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Darrell€Lynn€West,€appeals€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€without€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€After€reviewing€the€record,Ïwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€ÌÌòòò òà@ àI.€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€filed€the€instant€petition€on€June€28,€1989.€€This€is€theÏappellant's€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€is€currentlyÏincarcerated€in€the€state€penitentiary€pursuant€to€1987€convictions€for€armedÏrobbery€and€habitual€criminality.€€In€his€òòpro€seóó€petition,€the€appellant€challengesÏthe€validity€of€the€four€felony€convictions€used€to€declare€him€an€habitualÏcriminal.€€The€appellant€pled€guilty€to€all€four€felonies.€€He€now€contends€that€theÏtrial€judge€who€accepted€his€guilty€pleas€failed€to€advise€him,€as€required€byÏòòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€242„244,€89€S.Ct.€1709,€1712„1713€(1969),Ïand€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337,€341€(Tenn.€1977),€of€his€privilege€againstÏcompulsory€self„incrimination€and€his€right€to€confront€his€accusers.€ÏAdditionally,€the€appellant€argues€that€he€was€not€informed€that€the€fourÏconvictions€could€be€used€against€him€in€the€future€to€enhance€punishment€forÏother€crimes.€ÌÌà àOn€August€11,€1989,€the€post„conviction€court€appointed€counsel€for€theÏappellant.€€Subsequently,€this€attorney€withdrew€from€the€private€practice€of€lawÏand,€on€March€19,€1992,€the€post„conviction€court€appointed€another€attorney.€ÏNeither€attorney€submitted€an€amended€petition.€€Finally,€on€September€16,Ï1993,€the€court€found€that€the€appellant's€claims€for€relief€had€been€previouslyÏdetermined€and€dismissed€the€petition.€€On€October€18,€1993,€a€third€attorneyÏwas€appointed€for€the€purpose€of€appeal.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€on€OctoberÏ7,€1987.€€Amendments€were€filed€on€October€30,€1987,€and€March€24,€1988.€ÏThe€amended€petition€included€claims€identical€to€those€presented€in€theÏpetition€which€is€the€subject€of€this€appeal.€€Following€an€evidentiary€hearing,Ïthe€post„conviction€court€dismissed€the€appellant's€petition.€€This€court€affirmedÏthe€dismissal.€€òòWest€v.€Stateóó,€No.€1214€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989).× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà@ àòòò òII.€Analysisóóó óÌÌà àIt€is€firmly€established€that€a€court€can€summarily€dismiss€a€post„conviction€petition€without€an€evidentiary€hearing€if€the€grounds€contained€in€theÏpetition€have€been€previously€determined€or€waived.€€òòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814ÏS.W.2d€64,€69„70€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991);€ÏòòSloan€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€219,€220€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1972);€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„111€(1990)(repealed€1995)Ï("[t]he€scope€of€the€[post„conviction]€hearing€shall€extend€to€all€grounds€theÏpetitioner€may€have,€except€those€grounds€which€the€court€finds€should€beÏexcluded€because€they€have€been€waived€or€previously€determined").€€It€isÏundisputed€that€the€claims€in€the€petition€before€us€were€included€in€a€priorÏpetition,€which€was€considered€and€rejected€by€the€post„conviction€court€andÏthis€court.ÌÌà àNevertheless,€the€appellant€argues€that€he€filed€the€instant€petition€òòpro€seóóÏin€order€to€toll€the€three€year€statute€of€limitations,€intending€that€appointedÏcounsel€amend€the€petition€and€"raise€several€other€constitutional€issues."€€InÏessence,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€post„conviction€œcourtððs€dismissal€of€hisÏòòpro€seóó€petition€was€premature.€€The€court€could€only€dismiss€the€petitionÏfollowing€amendment€by€appointed€counsel.€€In›€support€of€his€argument,€theÏappellant€cites€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„109(a)(1)(1990)(repealed€1995),Ïwhich€authorized€dismissal€of€a€petition€without€an€evidentiary€hearing€onlyÏwhen€"òòthe€petition€has€been€competently€draftedóó€and€all€pleadings,€files€andÍrecords€of€the€case€which€are€before€the€court€conclusively€show€that€theÏpetitioner€is€entitled€to€no€relief€...€."€€(Emphasis€added).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòMayes€v.ÏStateóó,€671€S.W.2d€857,€858€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„109(a)€"requires€the€petition€to€be€competently€drafted").€€This€court€hasÏobserved€that,€in€making€a€determination€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„109(a)(1),€a€post„conviction€court€should€consider€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„107€(1990)(repealed€1995),€which€provided€that€no€dismissal€shall€be€orderedÏfor€defects€in€form€or€procedure€until€the€appellant€and€appointed€counsel€haveÏhad€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€amend,€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„115(b)Ï(1990)(repealed€1995),€which€similarly€provided€that€the€court€"shall€look€to€theÏsubstance€rather€than€the€form€of€the€petition€and€no€petition€shall€be€dismissedÏfor€technical€defects,€incompleteness€or€lack€of€clarity"€until€the€appellant€hasÏhad€reasonable€opportunity,€with€the€aid€of€counsel,€to€file€amendments.€ÏòòMartucci€v.€Stateóó,€872€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€We€noted€inÏòòMartuccióó€that€the€appointment€of€an€attorney€who€fails€to€correct€fatal€defects€in€aÏpetition€setting€forth€a€potentially€meritorious€constitutional€claim€will€notÏsuffice.× ƒ) ××  ×€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àHowever,€if€there€is€"a€lack€of€legal€merit,€appearing€upon€the€face€of€theÏpetition,"€then€the€post„conviction€court€may€dismiss€the€petition€without€evenÏpermitting€the€appellant€to€confer€with€counsel.€€òòBurt€v.€Stateóó,€454€S.W.2d€182,Ï184€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1970).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòAllen€v.ÏStateóó,€854€S.W.2d€873,€875„876€(Tenn.€1993);€òòSwanson€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2dÏ731,€734€(Tenn.€1988).€€In€other€words,€"a€clear€but€patently€non„meritoriousÏpetition€may€be€dismissed€summarily,"€without€the€appointment€of€counsel,Ïmuch€less€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòMartuccióó,€872€S.W.2d€at€949;€€òòCureton€v.ÏTollettóó,€477€S.W.2d€233,€236€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1972).€€Certainly,€therefore,€in€the€absence€of€some€valid€theory€of€reliefÏand€following€the€appointment€of€counsel€and€an€opportunity€to€amend€theÏpetition,€the€post„conviction€court€can€summarily€dismiss€a€petition,€even€thoughÏcounsel€has€not€amended€the€petition.€€òòGable€v.€Stateóó,€836€S.W.2d€558,€560Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Higginsóó,€729€S.W.2d€288,€290€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1987)€(we€presumed,€because€counsel€was€appointed€for€the€appellant,Ïthat€counsel€would€have€included€any€viable€legal€arguments€in€the€post„conviction€petition€or€in€an€amendment€thereto).ÌÌà àAgain,€all€issues€raised€by€the€appellant€in€his€second€petition€hadÏinarguably€been€previously€determined.€€Nevertheless,€at€the€appellant'sÏrequest,€the€post„conviction€court€appointed€counsel.€€Although€this€caseÍremained€pending€before€the€post„conviction€court€for€approximately€four€years,Ïcounsel€did€not€amend€the€petition.€€The€appellant,€in€his€brief,€concedes€thatÏappointed€counsel€did€not€amend€the€petition€because€counsel€believed€that€allÏviable€issues€had€been€previously€determined.€€Indeed,€we€note€that€threeÏdifferent€attorneys€have€represented€the€appellant€at€various€times€during€theseÏpost„conviction€proceedings€and€none€have€suggested€what€"otherÏconstitutional€issues"€might€be€relevant€to€the€appellant's€case.€€The€appellantÏhas€never€suggested€what€the€"other€constitutional€issues"€might€be.€€Finally,Ïthe€record€does€not€support€any€"other€constitutional€issues."€€There€is€no€dutyÏimposed€upon€the€post„conviction€court€"to€search€for€some€possible,Ïspeculative,€constitutional€challenge€not€raised€in€the€petition."€€œòòÌSowell›€v.€Stateóó,€724€S.W.2d€374,€376€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€courtÏdismissing€the€appellant's€petition€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€€