ÿWPC 0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U *¹ B)ã DC AMO 6œ v~Ò AQP Æ¡ 0Dg 0D« D/ï BvÓ;˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- á âãäåæDçèVéÓ€õŒƒ*#”3|xõ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òSeptember€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€̸XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œJACKSON›Ì̜ـ*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|sJ` Å `€€@ÿRßJULY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœRUNAKO€Q.€BLAIR,›à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ02C01„9608„CR„00277›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSHELBY›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œW.€FRED€AXLEYó ó›Ìœò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœAppellee.›à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Post„Conviction)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSHELBY€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœRUNAKO€Q.€BLAIR,€PRO€SE›à àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌRoute€1,€Box€660à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌTiptonville,€TN€38079à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àALANDA€HORNEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€301,€301€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103€€€€€€€€€€€€€›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€#XÔà àÔ€#ŠÔThe€Petitioner€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€Petitioner€sought€relief€alleging€that€(1)€TheÏindictment€failed€to€give€fair€notice€of€the€charges€against€the€Petitioner,€violatingÏhis€constitutional€rights;€(2)€the€jury€instructions€at€trial€containing€the€phraseÏð ðmoral€certaintyðð€œwere›€unconstitutional;€and€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏcharge€a€lesser€included€offense.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€withoutÏconducting€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€Defendant€appeals€the€trial€courtððsÏaction€raising€one€issue:€whether€the€€issues€raised€in€his€post„convictionÏpetition€have€been€waived€or€previously€determined.€€œWe€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.›ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€Defendant€was€convicted€on€March€9,€1994,Ïof€second„degree€murder€and€attempted€second„degree€murder.€€The€judgmentÏwas€affirmed€on€direct€appeal€to€this€Court€on€November€22,€1995.€€PermissionÏto€appeal€to€our€supreme€court€was€denied€on€May€13,€1996.€€The€PetitionerÏfiled€a€œòòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€›post„conviction€relief€on€June€24,€1996,€as€well€as€aÏmotion€to€appoint€counsel€and€for€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€trial€court€deniedÍan€evidentiary€hearing€and€dismissed€the€petition€in€an€order€filed€on€July€3,Ï1996.ÌÌà àIn€that€order,€the€trial€court€addressed€the€Petitionerððs€first€issue,€that€theÏindictment€failed€to€give€him€reasonable€notice€of€the€charges€against€him,€asÏwaived€or€previously€determined.€€In€his€post„conviction€petition,€the€PetitionerÏargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€charging€the€jury€on€second„degree€murder€asÏa€lesser€included€offense€of€felony€murder.€œHowever,€the€Petitioner€was€indictedÏfor€first„degree€intentional€murder.€€›€The€trial€court€found€that€the€œPetitionerððs›Ïsecond€issue,€that€the€jury€instruction€on€reasonable€doubt€was€unconstitutionalÏbecause€of€its€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€language,€was€without€merit.€€Finally,€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€Petitionerððs€third€issue,€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€juryÏinstruction€on€facilitation€of€felony€murder,€was€either€waived€or€previouslyÏdetermined€by€this€Court.ÌÌà àÌœà àThe›€new€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€governs€this€petition€and€allÏpetitions€filed€after€May€10,€1995.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„201€òòet€seq.óóÏ(Supp.€1996).€€œThe€Act€provides€that€a€trial€court€must€consider€a€petition€withinÏthirty€days€of€its€filing€and€ð ðexamine€it€together€with€all€the€files,€records,Ïtranscripts,€and€correspondence€relating€to€the€judgment€under€attack.ðð€€Tenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(a).€The›€prescribed€form€for€petitions€requires€that€theÏgrounds€for€relief€must€be€specified€and€that€a€petitioner€must€set€out€the€facts€toÏestablish€a€ð ðcolorable€claim.ðð€€A€colorable€claim€is€one€ð ðthat,€if€taken€as€true,€inÏthe€light€most€favorable€to€petitioner,€would€entitle€petitioner€to€relief€under€theÏPost„Conviction€Procedure€Act.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€28,€ðð€2(H).€œ€€Furthermore,€aÏpetitioner€must€rebut€the€presumption€that€claims€have€either€been€waived€orÏpreviously€determined.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„204(e).›€€œThe€presumption€ofÏwaiver€exists€as€follows:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà à(g)€A€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitioner€personally€orÏthrough€an€attorney€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€anyÏproceeding€before€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€groundÏcould€have€been€presented€unless:ÌÌà à(1)€The€claim€for€relief€is€based€upon€a€constitutional€right€notÏrecognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial€if€either€the€federal€or€stateÏconstitution€requires€retroactive€application€of€that€right;€€orÌÌà à(2)€The€failure€to€present€the€ground€was€the€result€of€stateÏaction€in€violation€of€the€federal€or€state€constitution.ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).€€€€An€issue€has€been€previously€determined€ð ðifÏa€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fairÏhearing.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(h).€€Then,€ð ð[i]f›€the€facts€alleged,€takenÏas€true,€fail€to€show€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€relief€or€fail€to€show€that€theÏclaims€for€relief€have€not€been€waived€or€previously€determined,€the€petition€shallÍbe€dismissed.€€The€order€of€dismissal€shall€set€forth€the€court's€conclusions€ofÏlaw.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(f).€€ÌœÌà àUnder€prior€law,€our€supreme€court€has€reversed€a€trial€courtððs€dismissal€ofÏa€second€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€without€appointment€of€counsel€or€a€hearing€when€theÏpetitioner€raised€a€constitutional€issue€and€rebutted€the€presumption€of€waiver.€ÏòòSwanson€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€731,€734€(Tenn.€1988).€€ÌÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° Ò[The€supreme€court]€has€previously€held€that€a€pro€se€petition€underÏthe€Act€is€"held€to€less€stringent€standards€than€formal€pleadingsÏdrafted€by€lawyers,€and€the€test€is€whether€it€appears€beyond€doubtÏthat€the€[petitioner]€can€prove€no€set€of€facts€in€support€of€his€claimÏwhich€would€entitle€him€to€relief."€€Furthermore,€when€a€colorable€claimÏis€presented€in€a€pro€se€petition,€dismissal€without€appointment€ofÏcounsel€to€draft€a€competent€petition€is€rarely€proper.€€€€If€theÏavailability€of€relief€cannot€be€òòconclusivelyóó€determined€from€a€òòproóó€òòseóóÏpetition€and€the€accompanying€records,€the€petitioner€must€be€givenÏthe€aid€of€counsel.€€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌòòSwansonóó,€749€S.W.2d€at€734.(citations€omitted)(emphasis€added).€€The€courtÏhas€also€held€that€a€petitionerððs€failure€to€rebut€the€presumption€that€the€issuesÏhave€been€waived€or€previously€determined€resulted€in€the€failure€to€present€aÏcolorable€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€814€S.W.2d€45,€49€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€òòSmithóó,Ïthe€petition€was€filed€òòproóó€òòseóó€alleging€a€constitutional€violation.€€òòId.óó€at€47.€ÏCounsel€was€appointed€but€failed€to€amend€the€petition€to€note€three€previouslyÏfiled€petitions.€€òòId.óó€€In€òòAllen€v.€Stateóó,€€the€court€also€reversed€a€dismissal€of€aÍsecond€petition,€filed€òòproóó€òòseóó€without€the€appointment€of€counsel.€€854€S.W.2dÏ873,€877€(Tenn.€1993).€€€However,€in€rewriting€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€ActÏrelevant€to€this€petition,€the€legislature€has€not€included€such€presumptions€asÏthe€court€ð ðmay€freely€allow€amendmentsðð€that€were€present€in€the€prior€Act.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„115(a)€(repealed€1995).Ì›Ìà àIn€this€appeal,€the€Petitioner€argues€that€the€issues€have€not€beenÏpreviously€determined€and€requests€a€ð ðfull€and€fair€hearingðð€and€cites€sectionsÏfrom€the€now€repealed€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€and€not€from€the€ActÏwhich€applies.€€€He€œhas›€not€addressed€the€issue€of€waiver€raised€by€the€œStateÏand€which€he€claims€is€the€issue€on€appeal.›€€€The€proper€œcontents›€for€a€petitionÏœrequire›€that€ð ð[t]he€petitioner€shall€include€allegations€of€fact€explaining€why€eachÏground€for€relief€was€not€previously€presented€in€any€earlier€proceeding.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode.€Ann.€ðð€40„30„204€(e).€€The€Rules€of€Post„Conviction€Procedure€require€aÏpetitioner€to€include€ð ðspecific€facts€supporting€each€claim€for€reliefðð€and€ð ðspecificÏfacts€explaining€why€each€claim€for€relief€was€not€previously€presented€in€anyÏearlier€proceeding.ðð€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€œ28,€ðð›€5(E)(3)„(4).€€€€Failure€to€comply€withÏthe€rule,€such€as€failing€to€include€specific€factual€allegations€or€rebut€theÏpresumption€of€waiver,€justifies€the€trial€court€in€dismissing€a€petition€without€aÏhearing.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€œ28,€ðð€5(F).›€€€Yet,€the€Rules€also€direct€that€ð ð[n]o€œproÏse›€petition€shall€be€dismissed€for€failure€to€follow€the€prescribed€form€until€theÍcourt€has€given€petitioner€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€amend€the€petition€withÏthe€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€œ28,›€ðð€6,€œ(4)(b).€€We€note€thatÏhere,€the€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€is€the€Petitionerððs€first€and€only€opportunity€to€present€hisÏclaims€under€the€new€Act.€€However,€the€trial€court€did€not€dismiss€the€petition€forÏlack€of€form,€but€considered€the€merits€of€the€petition€and€ruled€that€the€issuesÏwere€either€waived,€previously€determined,€or€without€merit.ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€the€Act€ð ðcontemplates€the€filing€of€only€one€(1)€petition.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„30„202€(c).€€The€legislature€has€clearly€expressed€its€willÏto€limit€numerous€and€frivolous€challenges€to€convictions€that€have€arisen€underÏthe€prior€law€by€repealing€the€entire€former€Act€and€replacing€it€with€moreÏstringent€requirements€in€the€new€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€In›€the€caseÏœòòsubóó›€òòœjudiceóó,›€the€Petitioner€timely€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€post„conviction€œpetition.€€Yet,€theÏAct€provides€that:€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓFailure€to€state€a€factual€basis€for€the€grounds€alleged€shall€result€inÏimmediate€dismissal€of€the€petition.€€If,€however,€the€petition€was€filedÏpro€se,€the€judge€òòmayóó€enter€an€order€stating€that€the€petitioner€must€fileÏan€amended€petition€that€complies€with€this€section€within€fifteen€(15)Ïdays€or€the€petition€will€be€dismissed.›ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌœTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(d)(emphasis€added).€€Moreover,€the€Rules€ofÏPost„Conviction€Procedure€state€that€if€a€petition€ð ðdoes€not€state€the€reasonsÏthat€the€claim€is€not€.€.€.€waived€.€.€.€òòmayóó€be€dismissed€without€a€hearing.ðð€ÍTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28,€ðð€5(F)(emphasis€added).€€€Furthermore,€if€the€trial€courtÏdetermines€that€ð ða€colorable€claim€is€not€asserted€by€the€petition,€the€court€shallÏenter€an€order€dismissing€the€petition€òòoróó€an€order€requiring€that€the€petition€beÏamended.ðð€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28,€ðð€6(B)(4)(a)(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€whenÏa€trial€court€determines€that€petitioner€has€not€presented€a€colorable€claim€or€thatÏa€claim€has€been€waived,€the€trial€court€may,€in€its€discretion,€summarily€dismissÏthe€petition€without€the€appointment€of€counsel.€€Almost€any€ground€for€relief,Ïexcept€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€could€be€raised€during€trial,€and€failureÏto€do€so€will€be€deemed€a€waiver.€€It€appears€clear€that€the€legislature€intendedÏto€restrict€somewhat€the€ability€of€convicted€criminals€to€collaterally€attack€theirÏconvictions.€€To€a€large€extent,€the€availability€and€extent€of€post„convictionÏremedies€lie€within€the€discretion€of€the€legislature.ÌÌà àAs€a€result,€many€nonmeritorious€petitions€may€be€summarily€dismissed€ifÏthe€trial€court€should€decline€to€appoint€counsel.€€There€exists€the€possibility€thatÏa€òòproóó€òòseóó€petitioner€may€have€a€meritorious€claim€dismissed€because€theÏpetitioner€was€unable€to€communicate€it€effectively€in€his€or€her€petition,€thusÏextinguishing€the€claim€forever.€€A€petitioner€may€also€miss€asserting€a€validÏclaim€that€appointed€counsel€could€discover€through€his€or€her€expertise€in€theÏlaw.€This€may€at€times€produce€what€may€appear€to€be€a€harsh€consequenceÏresulting€from€the€restrictions€in€the€new€Act.€€However,€the€legislature€hasÍestablished€the€guidelines€for€reviewing€post„conviction€cases.€€€In€the€case€òòsubóóÏòòjudiceóó,€the€Petitioner€raised€claims€that€could€have€been€asserted€at€trial€and€inÏhis€direct€appeal.€€He€has€not€presented€a€factual€explanation€why€thoseÏclaims€have€not€been€waived.€€Therefore,€it€was€proper€for€the€trial€court€toÏdismiss€the€petition€without€the€appointment€of€counsel€and€without€conductingÏan€evidentiary€hearing.ÌÌà àAccordingly,›€œwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.›Ìà àÌÓ  ÓÌÓӜǛà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE›