WPC  M=uby{Clz4痋*fJn2`{SԄM|<*ij2Ebtd)8+k֚e]in! Mw 3l :iIqFJ ^sbGc_z?b%O]: %ӽ1Ypq!dلw'@OZh2v%?ȗ LA5ǎ:zSwuT5 h 4H`mq*-s20Ci(G83lL' }UŖ ~6Ӑ|F:;rT!6Z8x"M/MP R_.@-J Zu.D_8K~R0UXuR5~kwȭ/Ro˓592bllx Lzl=,G`)UN> % 0(U:w@44H-W 0F 0DZ(U: AQ Q 0D 0D[ 0D D/ B B/ D3L (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,  AZ"Arial Regular EEFGUHUIUJKeLEM ӀYn~<$3|xY ##Xd#(8(2$ !  X X `   0   <  $ X X `   1    ݀BecausethesubjectpetitionwasfiledpriortoMay10,1995,itis  controlledbythepriorPostConvictionProcedureAct.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.  4030101etseq(1990).(#$  0    !"  XIXXXv1XXI   Ad FILEDXIXv1   November9,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXIAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !  KKKKXIXXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T76XXdd7  ќYMMr (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$ rYYt (>.*jx` `@Ec` ttx$ tߛY@  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATJACKSON@"SEPTEMBER1998SESSIONRICHARDCALDWELL, @-)  ` @-) p NO.02C019711CC00446   L   ` Appellant,@-)  8  @-) p HENDERSONCOUNTY     VS. @-)   @-) p HON.WHITLAFON,   STATEOFTENNESSEE, @-) p JUDGE    @-) ` Appellee.@-) p (PostConviction) d (  @(#(#( FORTHEAPPELLANT: L DAVIDC.STEBBINSL̛L LCounselofRecordL  $  330SouthHighStreet  Columbus,OH43215 JOHNG.OLIVA r  601WoodlandStreet ^ Nashville,TN37206 *z  FORTHEAPPELLEE: L JOHNKNOXWALKUP  $ AttorneyGeneralandReporter MARVINE.CLEMENTS,JR.  " AssistantAttorneyGeneralCordellHullBuilding,2ndFloor425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,TN372430493 JAMESG.WOODALL   F( DistrictAttorneyGeneral ALFREDL.EARLS  #+ AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral225MartinLutherKingDr.P.O.Box2825Jackson,TN383022825 2(#0 (  @( OPINIONFILED:򀀀 b/*6 AFFIRMEDJOEG.RILEY,JUDGE  72?   OPINION   ` Thepetitioner,RichardCaldwell,appealsthetrialcourt'sdismissalofhissecondpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Thepostconvictioncourtdismissedthepetitionwithoutanevidentiaryhearing,findingthepetitionbarredbythestatuteoflimitationsandtheissueseitherpreviouslydeterminedorwaived.Forreasonsoutlinedbelow,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.  PROCEDURALHISTORY l     ` Thepetitionerwasinitiallyconvictedin1981ofthefirstdegreemurderofCarlLipfordandsentencedtolifeimprisonment.ThisCourtaffirmedtheconviction.Statev.Caldwell,656S.W.2d894(Tenn.Crim.App.1983). X PermissiontoappealwasdeniedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt.Thatconvictionisthesubjectofthepresentpetition. ` SubsequenttotheconvictionintheLipfordmurder,thepetitionerwasconvictedofthefirstdegreemurderofLarryClimerandsentencedtodeath.Thepetitioner'sconvictionandsentenceintheClimermurderwereultimatelyupheldbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt.Statev.Caldwell,871S.W.2d459 &<"& (Tenn.1984). ` ThepetitionerKKsubsequentlyfiledKKforpostconvictionreliefontheLipfordKKconvictionKK.KKThiscourtKKultimatelyupheldKKthetrialcourt'sdismissalofthatpetition.Statev.RichardCaldwellJr.,C.C.A.No.3,HendersonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App. /8+0 filedMarch28,1990,atJackson).PermissiontoappealwasdeniedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt. ` Thepetitionerfiledtwo(2)petitionsforpostconvictionreliefontheClimerconvictionwhichweredeniedbythetrialcourtandconsolidatedforappeal.M7FNXXdXXd7  ML7FNXXdXXd7  LK7FNXXdXXd7  KThis 844: 7qXXdXXd7  MMM7qXXdXXd7MM  MM7qXXdXXd7MM  MM7qXXdXXd7MM  MCourtKKaffirmedthedenialofrelief.KKKKRichardCaldwellv.State,C.C.A.No.9,  MadisonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedMarch21,1990,atJackson).PermissiontoappealwasdeniedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt.InJanuary1993,thepetitionerfiledathirdpetitionattackingtheClimerconviction.Thepetitionerallegedhisinitialarrestforpublicintoxicationwhichledtotheconvictionsinbothmurdercaseswasapretext,thesolepurposeofwhichwastogatherinformationontheLipfordmurder.ThedenialofthatpetitionwaseventuallyaffirmedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt.Caldwellv.State,917   S.W.2d662(Tenn.1996). ` ThepetitionerfiledtheinstantpetitioninJanuary1995,   %  1      ׀whilethepetition  p attackingtheClimerconvictionwaspending.ThepetitionerattackedhisLipfordconvictionallegingthefollowinggrounds:  ̀(1)  KKpretextualKKarrestleadingtoinadmissible  Ѐevidence;̀(2)  KKerroneousKKadmissionofhisstatementsto l Ѐauthorities;̀(3)  KKimproperKKsearchleadingtoinadmissible D! Ѐevidence;̀(4)  KKerroneousKKKK reasonabledoubtjuryinstruction; #l! Ѐ(5)  KKimproperKKKKclosingargumentbythestate; $X" Ѐ(6)  KKineffectiveKKKKassistanceofcounsel; $D # Ѐ(7)  KKstatesKKKKwithholdingofexculpatoryevidence; %0!$ Ѐ(8)  KKprosecutorialKKKKmisconduct; &"% Ѐ(9)  KKjuryKKKKmisconduct; '#& KK(10)  KKKKstatesKKdelayinadvisingpetitionerofcertain (#' ЀKKexculpatoryKKKKevidence;(11)  KKimproperKKKKadministrationofdrugstopetitioner; |*%) (12)  KKerroneousKKKK malicejuryinstruction; h+&* (13)  KKinsufficientKKevidenceanderroneous T,'+ Ѐ premeditationand deliberationjuryπinstruction;(14)  KKdenialKKKKofcompletetrialtranscript;and /h*. (15)  KKcumulativeKKKKeffectoferrorsleadingtodenialof 0T+/   afairtrial.  ThetrialcourtfoundallissuestobeeitherKKtimebarred,KKKKpreviouslydeterminedorwaived. 505 Ї  I.      ` Thepetitionerclaimsinhisfirstissuethatthetrialcourt'sdismissalofthepetitionasbarredbythestatuteoflimitationsKKviolateKKKKsKKKKKKdueprocess.ThepetitionerbasesthisclaimuponanunreportedcasewhichenabledhimforthefirsttimetoreviewpolicerecordswhichallegedlyKKrevealKKKKJedJKKKKKKhisinitialarrestwaspretextual.SeeCapitalCaseResourceCenterv.Woodall,C.A.No.01A01   9104CH00150,DavidsonCounty(Tenn.App.filedJanuary29,1992,atNashville).Becausehewasnotabletoobtainallegedlyexculpatorypoliceradiologsuntilafterthatdecision,thepetitionerclaimsthestatuteoflimitationsforpostconvictionactionsdidnotbegintorununtilaftertheWoodallopinionwas 0 filed.SeeBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992);Sandsv.State,903 X S.W.2d297(Tenn.1995). ` Initially,wemustnotethepetitionerraisedtheidenticalpretextualarrestissueinhissecondpetitionforpostconvictionreliefontheClimerconviction.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtaffirmedthedismissalofthepetition.TheSupremeCourtstated:  AswedidinBurford,wemustcarefullyweighthe &,"% interestsofbothpartiestodetermineifdueprocessrequiresthesuspensionofthelimitationsperiodsoastoaffordthepetitionerareasonableopportunitytolitigatetheclaim.  Caldwell,917S.W.2dat666.However,KKafterKKKKbalancingthestatesinterestsof P-(, precludingstalelitigationandavoidingexcessivecostswiththepetitioner'sinterestinlitigatingthisparticularclaim,KKtheCourtconcludedKKKKthestate'sinterestswere weightier.Id.at668. 2(.2  ` WeadopttheCourt'sreasoningintheinstantpetition.AllissuesareKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 8:5: KKKKbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030102  (repealed1995). ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  II.  8      ` Thesecondissuepresentedforreviewiswhetherthetrialcourt'sfindingthatthepetitioner'sclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselhadbeen previouslydeterminedKKviolateKKKKsKKKKKKhisrighttodueprocess. ` Thepetitionerallegedtrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingto:(1)properlyinvestigatethefacts,(2)properlyvoirdirethejury,(3)developa 0 defensebaseduponpetitionersmentalcondition,(4)seekexpertassistance,(5)makeaproperclosingargument,and(6)objecttothe reasonabledoubtjuryinstruction.Thetrialcourtfoundtheissueofineffectiveassistanceofcounselhad alreadybeenraisedandlitigatedinthepetitionersfirstpostconvictionproceeding. ` Ifanissuehasbeen previouslydetermined,itmaynotbeKKlitigatedKKKKKKinKKKKasubsequentpostconvictionpetition.Tenn.CodeAnn.KK4030112(a)(repealedKKKK1995);Caruthersv.State,814S.W.2d64,KK6970KKKK(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).The x+&* issueofineffectiveassistanceofcounselwasdeterminedinthefirstpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.SeeStatev.RichardCaldwell,Jr.,C.C.A.No.3, (/x*. HendersonCounty,supra.Thepetitionerclaimsthatlimitingapetitionertoa 1P,0 singlechallengeofeffectiveassistanceofcounselisa"novelpropositionnotpreviouslyfoundinTennesseelaw."Wedisagree.Ineffectiveassistanceofcounselisa"single'groundforrelief'"ascontemplatedbystatute.SeeConev. 616 State,927S.W.2d579,KK58182KKKK(Tenn.Crim.App.KK1995).KKKKApetitionermaynot `838 relitigatea previouslydeterminedissuebypresentingadditionalfactual 8:5: allegationsinasubsequentpetition.Cone,927S.W.2dat582.   ` Thepetitionercontendssomeofthegroundsforineffectiveassistanceofcounselwerenotdiscovereduntilafterthefilingofthefirstpetition.However,wefindnothinginthepetitionthatwouldjustifyfurtherlitigationonthisissue. ` Additionally,thepetitionerclaimsthatcounselwhofiledhisfirstpetitionforpostconvictionreliefwasineffective.However,itissettledlawthatapetitionerisnotentitledtoeffectiveassistanceofcounselinthepostconvictionsetting.Housev.State,911S.W.2d705,712(Tenn.1995).Thus,theissueof H effectiveassistanceofcounselhasbeen previouslydetermined. ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  III.     ` Thepetitionerhasallegedfifteengroundsforreliefinthis,hissecond P"  petitionforpostconvictionrelief.Theissuesrelatingtosufficiencyoftheevidence,theadmissionofpetitionersstatementstoauthoritiesandimproperclosingargumentbythestatewerepreviouslydeterminedondirectappeal.KKCaldwell,656S.W.2dat89697.KKKKKKTheKKKKissuesofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel )%( andthemalicejuryinstructionwerepreviouslydeterminedonappealofthedenialofthefirstpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.KKCaldwell,C.C.A.No.3, `-(, HendersonCounty,supra.KKKKAllotherissuesraisedinthepresentpetitionare 8/*. waivedforfailuretopresentthemeitherondirectappealorKKinthefirstKKKKpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030112(b)(repealed1995); 28.2 House,911S.W.2dat714.  404  838   IV.     ` Thepetitioner'sfinalissueassertshewasdenieddueprocessasthetrial  courtdismissedhispetitionwithouthavingacompleterecordofpreviousproceedings.SeeAllenv.State,854S.W.2d873,875(Tenn.1993)(holdingitis 0  theroleofthestatetofilepartsofrecordmaterialtopetition).KKTheKKKKtrialcourtdismissedthepetitionastimebarredKKwiththeissuesKKKKhavingbeenpreviouslydeterminedorKKwaivedKKKKKKB.BCCKKKKKKDTDDDCtCheKKKKrecordofpreviousproceedingswasnotnecessaryforKKEitsdecisionEFthetrialcourttoproperlymakeitsrulingF.KKKK ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   CONCLUSION @     ` Forthereasonsstatedabove,wefindthepetitioner'sargumentswithoutmeritandAFFIRMthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.KKGGKKKK `     h      p _________________________ '8#&  `     h      p JOEG.RILEY,JUDGECONCUR:KKHHKKKK_________________________PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGEKKIIKKKK_________________________DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE