WPC5 bt|IY4I!4S.kn"slD5 r|p*mOnU7y J዇*\M!_sr[-})}TUh$f3pá#r&JO]4t͹l]{m1=+dh7.$)%ACO(%R@3w@>g0GCV2rnva 9 Oٵq2YD22V}5]ʹ4]]q˯D[HX -&M9:2ÇXk>8bf2Y'LodُG՝36~@g\5Ab%t{Ey|)~DdOPC N~5:YCg}6=6=ك~3M^O{ZڎX/46Kl=d#f!^PTDVRv )# >UNI % 0(LU:bKw@S4 0 0D|UN"0 n U:9 "s U:  U:jnU:L AQT(U: B$ 0D 0D. 0Drr D/ B D3HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,|AZ"Arial Regular- - NDOPQDRVDWDXeYӀen~<$3|xe(v(2$ !  XXXXXXX `   0  (#$  0  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular   [L$XXPXXX6XXP `   1    ݀TheseaggravatingcircumstancesarepresentlycodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(I)(2) `  and(7).   [L$XXPXXX6XXP `   2    ݀ThisissueisproperlybeforethisCourtunderTenn.CodeAnn.4030105(1990),inthatthe `  holdinginMiddlebrooksistobeappliedretroactively.Barberv.State,889S.W.2d185,187(Tenn.1994). d  [L$XXPXXX6XXP `   3    ݀Trialcounselraisedtheissueofthetrialcourtsfailuretoallowinvestigativeassistanceinthe `  motionfornewtrial. However,theissuewasnotpursuedonappeal.,cAZ"Arial Regular   [L$XXPXXX6XXP `   1    ݀TheseaggravatingcircumstancesarepresentlycodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(2) `  and(7).,cAZ"Arial Regular   [L$XXPXXX6XXP `   2    ݀ThisissueisproperlybeforethisCourtunderTenn.CodeAnn.4030105(1990),inthatthe `  holdinginMiddlebrooksistobeappliedretroactively.Barberv.State,889S.W.2d185,187(Tenn.1994).,cAZ"Arial Regular d  [L$XXPXXX6XXP `   3    ݀Trialcounselraisedtheissueofthetrialcourtsfailuretoallowinvestigativeassistanceinthe `  motionfornewtrial. However,theissuewasnotpursuedonappeal.,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< C  !"  X{XXX3x XX{   Ad FILEDX{X 3x   December4,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr. XX{AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxdP Pd'dxd !  YXXY` XX`8TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T76nXXdXXd7      eYr(<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$,` rYeeeeYYeeeeeeeINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEet(>.*jx?` `@E3G ` ttx$k A tߛeATJACKSONAUGUSTSESSION,1997  X{X`8MICHAELANGELOCOLEMAN#`8XX{#,  )  C.C.A.NO.02C019611CR00395 `  `     h   ) `  ` Appellant,   h   ) X   `     h   ) `     h   )  SHELBYCOUNTY X  VS. `     h   )   X   `     h   )  HON.JOEB.BROWN,JR.  X   STATEOFTENNESSEE,   )  JUDGE  X   `     h   )  X  ` Appellee.   h   )  (PostConvictionFirstDegree X  `     h   )  FelonyMurder) X      FORTHEAPPELLANT: h     FORTHEAPPELLEE: 8 MICHAELJ.PASSINO h     JOHNKNOXWALKUP (! 213FifthAvenue,North h     AttorneyGeneralandReporter  " Nashville,TN37219 `     h     JOHNP.CAULEYAPRILFERGUSON h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral % AssistantFederalDefender    425FifthAvenue,North & 100NorthMainBldg. h     Nashville,XTnXXTN.X37243 & Suite410Memphis,TN38103 h     WILLIAML.GIBBONS (   `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     JOHNW.CAMPBELL `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     201PoplarStreet `     h     Memphis,TN38103OPINIONFILED________________________AFFIRMEDJERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE  5 ,-9   C`8OPINION #`8CJ # `  QQMK AsKMNKXPXAsKNO  OPP ` Theappellant,MichaelAngeloColeman,appealstheShelbyCountyCriminalCourtsorderdenyinghissecondpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.In1980,Appellantreceivedadeathsentenceafterhewasconvictedoffirstdegreefelonymurder.Onappeal,heclaimsthatheisentitledtoanewsentencinghearingduetothejuryserroneousrelianceonthefelonymurderaggravatingcircumstancetosupporttheimpositionofthedeathpenalty.SeeStatev. T Middlebrooks,840S.W.2d317(Tenn.1992).Afterathoroughreviewofthe D record,wefindnoreversibleerrorandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@) BACKGROUND     ` Theproofattrial,assetoutbyourSupremeCourtondirectappeal,wasasfollows:RR8 `  AppellantandhiscodefendantwereconvictedofthekillingofLeonWatsonduringarobbery,whichoccurredinMemphis,Tennessee,onMay2,1979.Thatmorning,Mr.Watsonlefthishometogotoanearbygrocerystore.Hedidnotreturn.Atabout10:00p.m.Mrs.WatsonwascontactedbyarepresentativeoftheMemphisPoliceDepartmentandwastakentoviewawhite1964Buickautomobile,whichsheidentifiedasbeingthatofherhusband's.Bloodwasfoundontheseatandflooroftheautomobile,andabulletwasfoundintheleftdoor. ` !` ! 8 `  AppellantandcodefendantBellwerearrestedaboutonehourlateronanothercharge.Thenextmorning,atabout5:15a.m.,bothappellantandBellwereadvisedoftheirMirandarights.AppellantthentoldtheofficersoffindingabodyofablackmaninafieldnearThirdStreetinMemphis.HedirectedofficerstothescenewheretheyfoundthebodyofMr.Watson.Mr.Watson'sempty billfoldwasonthegroundnearhisbody.ItemsfromMr.Watson's \8.0 automobilewerestrewnaroundthebody,indicatingtheautomobilehadbeenransackedbeforeitwasdrivenfromthescene. ` !` !  8 `  AppellantwasadvisedagainofhisMirandarights.Thereafter,heconfessedtoshootingandkillingMr.WatsoninMr.Watson'sautomobile.Healsoadmittedgoingthroughthevictim'sbillfoldaftertheshooting,andstatedhehadremovedtheC.B.radiofromtheautomobile,buthaddecidednottokeepit. ` !` ! 8 `  CodefendantBell,inhisstatementtothepoliceandinhistestimonyatthetrial,namedappellantasthemanwhoshotandkilledMr.Watson.HealsotestifiedthatapistolbelongingtoMr.Watsonwastakenaftertheshootingandthatappellanthadtakentheguntohisgrandmother'shouse. ` !` ! R RQKKQStatev.Coleman,619S.W.2d112,11314(Tenn.1981).Atthesentencing  hearingfollowingAppellantsconviction,thejuryfoundtwo(2)aggravatingcircumstancestobeapplicable,namely:(1)thattheappellantwaspreviouslyconvictedofoneormorefeloniesinvolvingviolence,Tenn.CodeAnn.392404(XiXXIX)(2)(Supp.1977);and(2)themurderwascommittedwhiletheappellantwasengagedincommittingarobbery,Tenn.CodeAnn.392404(XiXXIX)(7)(Supp.1977).XXXX  #  1      ׀Afterfindingnomitigatingcircumstancesthatwouldoutweighthe $  aggravatingones,thejuryimposedasentenceofdeath.AppellantsconvictionanddeathsentencewereaffirmedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourt.Statev. `(  Coleman,619S.W.2dat116. P* "  ` Subsequently,Appellantfiledhisfirstpetitionforpostconvictionreliefallegingnumerousconstitutionalerrors,includinganineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim.Thetrialcourtdeniedrelief,andthisCourtaffirmedonappeal.  0&( Statev.MichaelAngeloColeman,C.C.A.No.31,ShelbyCounty(Tenn.Crim. 2(* App.filedJune28,1984,atJackson).PermissiontoappealwasdeniedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtonOctober29,1984. 5,.  ` Thereafter,theTennesseeSupremeCourtissueditsopinioninStatev. `  Middlebrooks,whichheldthatwhenadefendantisconvictedoffirstdegree P  murder solelyonthebasisoffelonymurder,thefelonymurderaggravatingcircumstance doesnotnarrowtheclassofdeath-eligiblemurdererssufficientlyundertheEighthAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution,andArticleI,16oftheTennesseeConstitution,andasaresult,thataggravatingcircumstanceisunconstitutionallyappliedwherethedeathpenaltyisimposedforfirstdegreefelonymurder.840S.W.2dat346. ` InMay1993,Appellantfiledhissecondpetitionforpostconvictionrelief,claimingthathisdeathsentenceshouldbeoverturnedduetotheMiddlebrooks p errorathissentencinghearing.Appellantraisedvariousotherissuesandalsorequestedtheopportunitytopresentadditionalmitigationproof.ThetrialcourtfoundthattheMiddlebrookserrorwasharmlessanddeniedrelief.Thecourtalso  @ notedthattheotherissues,includingthatregardingineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrial,werebarredbythestatuteoflimitations. Fromthetrialcourts $  ruling,Appellantbringsthisappeal.@mm% MIDDLEBROOKSERROR XXXX  #  2      ׈ `*!"  ` AppellantcontendsthatheisentitledtoanewsentencinghearingbecauseoftheunconstitutionalrelianceonthefelonymurderaggravatingcircumstancepursuanttoStatev.Middlebrooks,supra.Heclaimsthataharmlesserror 02(* analysisisinappropriateinthiscaseandfurtherarguesthathehasaninterestinhavingajury,notthisCourt,determinehissentence.Additionally,heurges 6,. thisCourttoallowhimtopresentadditionalmitigationevidencetosupporthisclaimthattheMiddlebrookserrorwasnotharmless. P  @EE- A.  @   ` ItisundisputedinthiscasethataMiddlebrookserroroccurredat @ Appellantssentencinghearing.BecauseAppellantwasconvicted solelyonthebasisoffelonymurder,thejurysconsiderationofthefelonymurderaggravatingcircumstanceinsentencingwasconstitutionallyinvalid.Statev.Middlebrooks,   840S.W.2dat346. ` However,thisdoesnotendthisCourtsanalysis.InStatev.Howell,868  S.W.2d238(Tenn.1993),theSupremeCourtheldthataharmlesserroranalysisisappropriateindeterminingwhetherresentencingisrequiredasaresultofaMiddlebrookserror.Acapitalsentencingjurysconsiderationofaninvalid ` aggravatingcircumstancemaybeconsideredharmlessonlyiftheappellatecourtconcludes,beyondareasonabledoubt, thatthesentencewouldhavebeenthesamehadthesentencingauthoritygivennoweighttotheinvalidaggravatingfactor.Statev.Howell,868S.W.2dat260(citingStringerv.Black,503U.S. &  222,230,112S.Ct.1130,1137,117L.Ed.2d367(1992)).Inmakingthisdetermination,theappellatecourtshouldconsider thenumberandstrengthofremainingvalidaggravatingcircumstances,theprosecutor'sargumentatsentencing,theevidenceadmittedtoestablishtheinvalidaggravator,andthenature,qualityandstrengthofmitigatingevidence.Id.at261. 00&(  ` ApplyingaHowellanalysistothecasesubjudice,webeginwiththe  2(* numberandstrengthoftheremainingvalidaggravatingcircumstances.ThesoleremainingaggravatingcircumstanceuponwhichthejuryreliedwasthatAppellanthadpreviousconvictionsoffeloniesinvolvingtheuseofviolence.Tenn.CodeAnn.392404(XiXXIX)(2)(Supp.1977)(currentlyTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(XiXXIX)(2)). 902 Appellanthadsix(6)priorviolentfelonyconvictions,includingthree(3)juryconvictionsforassaultwithintenttocommitmurderinthefirstdegree,one(1)juryconvictionforassaultwithintenttocommitrobberywithadeadlyweapon,one(1)juryconvictionforrobberywithadeadlyweaponandone(1)juryconvictionforkidnapping.TheHowellcourtrecognizedthatthenumberof   remainingaggravatingfactorswasnotasimportantas thequalitativenatureofeachcircumstance,itssubstanceandpersuasiveness,aswellasthequantumofproofsupportingit.Howellat261.Furthermore,theCourtnotedthatthe   remainingvalidaggravatingcircumstanceinthiscase,priorfelonyconvictionsinvolvingviolence,isbyitsverynature morequalitativelypersuasiveandobjectivelyreliablethanothers.Id.Moreover,thequalitativenatureofthe ` aggravatingcircumstanceincreaseswiththenumberofpriorviolentfelonyconvictions.Id.Sixpriorviolentfelonyconvictionsmakesthisremaining  @ aggravatingfactorstrongindeed. ` Secondly,withregardtotheprosecutionsargumentatsentencing,therecordrevealsthattheprosecutordidnotoverlyemphasizetheinvalidfelonymurderaggravatingcircumstanceinhisclosingargumentatsentencing.Infact,outofapproximatelythirteen(13)pagesoftheprosecutionsargumentatclosing,thisaggravatingcircumstancewasmentionedonlyonce.TheremainderofthestatesargumentfocusedprimarilyonAppellantspriorviolentfelonyconvictions. ` Additionally,thestateproducednoadditionalevidenceatsentencingtosupporttheinvalidfelonymurderaggravatingcircumstance.Thestatemerelyreliedupontheevidenceproducedduringtheguiltphaseofthetrial.InHowell, 4*, theCourtobserved:8 ` [e]venthoughthejurycannotweightheinvalidaggravatingfactoragainstanymitigatingfactors,thejurycanproperlyconsiderevidenceofthecircumstancesofthecrimeandthecharacterofthe 9p02 defendantinmakinganindividualizeddeterminationofwhetherthedeathsentenceisjustified...Inthatrespect,anaggravatingfactorwhichduplicatestheelementsoftheunderlyingcrimehaslessrelativetendencytoprejudiciallyaffectthesentenceimposedthaninvalidaggravatingfactorswhichinterjectinadmissibleevidenceintothesentencingcalculus,orwhichrequirethesentencingjurytodrawadditionalconclusionsfromtheguiltphaseevidence. ` !` ! Id.at261(citationsomitted).    ` Finally,therewasverylittlemitigatingevidencepresentedonAppellantsbehalfatsentencing.TherewastestimonyindicatingthatAppellanthadanunstablefamilylifeanddifficultiesinschool.However,thepsychologicaltestimonymerelyshowedthatAppellantwascompetenttostandtrialandwasnotlegallyinsane. ` WefindthiscasetobecloselyanalogouswiththerecentcaseofStatev. ` Boyd,959S.W.2d557(Tenn.1998),whereintheSupremeCourtupheldthe P defendantsdeathsentenceafterfindingaMiddlebrookserror.Inthatcase,the  @ juryfoundthesametwo(2)aggravatingcircumstancestosupporttheimpositionofthedeathpenaltyasthejurydidinthiscase.AfterfindingaMiddlebrooks $  error,theBoydcourtconductedaharmlesserroranalysispursuanttoHowell. p& 959S.W.2dat56062.TheCourtnotedthatthedefendantinBoydhadone `(  previousconvictionforseconddegreemurder,aviolentfelony.Id.at561.Inthe P* " presentcase,theappellanthadsix(6)priorviolentfelonyconvictions.Furthermore,asinthiscase,theprosecutionsargumentontheinvalidaggravatingfactorwaslimited,andthestatepresentednoadditionalevidenceinsupportofthatfactoratthesentencinghearing.Id.at56162.Moreover,there 2(* waslittlemitigatingevidencepresentedonbehalfofthedefendantintheBoyd 4*, case.Id.at562. 5,.  ` AfterconsideringalloftheHowellfactorsinconjunctionwiththeanalysis 7.0 inBoyd,weconcludebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthesentencewouldhave 9p02 beenthesamehadthejurynotconsideredtheinvalidaggravatingfactor.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.@BB- B.  @   ` Inconnectionwithhisargumentthatharmlesserrorreviewisinappropriateinthiscase,Appellantfurtherassertsthathehasastatecreatedlibertyinterestinhavingajurydeterminewhetherheshouldreceivethedeathpenalty.Insupportofthisargument,hecitesthecaseofRickmanv.Dutton,854F.Supp.   1305(M.D.Tenn.1994).However,inStatev.Boyd,thedefendantmadethe   identicalargumentasthatraisedbyAppellant.TheSupremeCourtrejectedthedefendantsargument,stating:8 ` [t]hecasecitedbythedefendantinsupportofhisargument,Rickmanv.Dutton,854F.Supp.1305(M.D.Tenn.1994),however, h recognizesthatevenifadueprocesslibertyinterestexistsonthebasisofthesestatutoryprovisions,constitutionalharmlesserroranalysisisnotprecluded.We,therefore,disagreewiththedefendant'sassertionthatthesestatutoryprovisionsprecludeappellatereviewofthesentence.Moreover,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasrepeatedlyheldthatconstitutionalharmlesserroranalysisisappropriateinthiscontext,providedthatitpreservestheconstitutionalrequirementofindividualizedsentencing.See,e.g.,Stringerv.Black,503U.S.at232,112S.Ct. &  at1137-38(1992);Clemonsv.Mississippi,[494U.S.738,753,110 x' S.Ct.1441,1450-51,108L.Ed.2d725(1990)]. ` !` ! Id.at56263. `*!"  ` Thisissuehasnomerit.@BB- C.  @.$&  ` AppellantalsomakesanovelargumentthatthisCourtshouldallowhimtopresentadditionalmitigationevidencetosupporthisallegationthattheMiddlebrookserrorwasnotharmless.Heclaimsthathistrialattorneyfailedto  4*, presentadequatemitigatingevidenceduringthesentencinghearing.He contendsthatifthisCourtweretoconsiderallofthepossiblemitigationevidence 8.0 thatwasnotpresentedtothejury,thenwecouldnotconcludethattheerrorwasharmless.  ` ItappearsthatAppellantisattemptingtorelitigatehisclaimofineffectiveassistanceoftrialcounsel.Appellantcontendedthattrialcounselwasineffectiveinhisfailuretopresentadequatemitigationevidenceinthefirstpetitionforpostconvictionrelief,andthisCourtconcludedthattrialcounselwascompetentinthatrespect.Statev.MichaelAngeloColeman,C.C.A.No.31,slipop.at23.As   such,thisissuehasbeen previouslydeterminedbyacourtofcompetentjurisdictionandmaynotbepresentedagain.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030  112(a)(1990). ` Nonetheless,thisCourtconductsharmlesserrorreviewontherecordasitispresentedtous.Wearenotatlibertytoconsiderextraneousinformationnotpresentedattrialtodetermineiftheerrorwas,infact,harmless.Wemustreviewcasesastheyare,notastheymighthavebeen. ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.@( OTHERISSUES  `(   ` Finally,Appellantassignsaserrorthetrialcourtsdismissalofnumerousotherissuesonthebasisthattheyarebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.Specifically,theappellantclaimsthattrialcounselfailedtoproperlyinvestigateandpresentmitigatingevidenceattrial.Healsocontendsthatthetrialcourterredinrefusinghisrequestforinvestigativeassistanceandinrefusingtoallowtrialcounseltointroducerelevantmitigationevidence.Hefurtherallegesthathis righttoseekexpertandinvestigativeassistancewasnotrecognizeduntil1995 7.0 whentheSupremeCourtissueditsopinioninOwensv.State,908S.W.2d923 `  (Tenn.1995);therefore,thisclaimcannotbebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.  ` Initially,wenotethatAppellantsclaimsregardingtrialcounselsfailuretoinvestigatecouldhavebeenpresentedinhispriorpetitionforpostconvictionrelief,butwerenot.Assuch,theyarewaived.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030112(b)(1990).Thesameistruewithregardtotheallegedtrialerrors.Theseissuesarewaivedforfailuretopresenttheminapriorproceeding.XXXX  #  3      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.40   30112(b)(1990).Moreover,aswehavepreviouslynoted,Appellantsclaimthattrialcounselwasineffectiveinfailingtopresentmitigationevidencewas previouslydeterminedinhisfirstpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030112(a)(1990).Additionally,weagreewiththetrialcourtthattheseissuesarebarredbythethree(3)yearstatuteoflimitations.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102;seeAbstonv.State,749S.W.2d487,488(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).  @  ` AppellantalsoclaimsthathisrighttoseekexpertandinvestigativeassistancewasnotrecognizeduntiltheSupremeCourtissueditsopinioninOwensv.State,supra.However,inOwens,theCourtrecognizedthatindigent p& defendantshaveastatutoryrighttoinvestigativeandexpertservicesinapost `(  convictioncapitalcases.908S.W.2dat929.Postconvictionreliefisonlyavailablewhentheconvictionorsentenceisvoidorvoidableduetotheabridgementofaconstitutionalright.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030105(1990). 0.$& Therefore,therightrecognizedinOwensisnotcognizableinapostconviction  0&( proceedingandthisissueisnotproperlybeforethisCourt. 5,. @) CONCLUSION  `   ` Weconcludethattheappellantwouldhavereceivedthesamesentencehadthejurynotconsideredtheinvalidfelonymurderaggravatingcircumstance.Furthermore,theremainderofAppellantsissueshavebeeneitherwaived,previouslydetermined,barredbythestatuteoflimitationsorarenotcognizableinapostconvictionpetition.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.MK#XPXX Xf4#KMNK#AsXXP#KNWW `     h   VV  V ` V `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE___________________________________THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE