WPC m>,N_vt y,N}D+wgc($-EdG8GSUگwt-95/,SV߶Ivg 4/|jȭ|3=DhI?>~2`lLa4:@0V}mU=_[uulq |Q d- ,C@jb]3c5O!Mlj-9Cn"'zj^+nQ$MlN[cTɾ$Y7ڷ)GKp[\NL~ `^)V!rş-]L'[nVV.C+tbɞvA>sRR¾U?'`a8/ d7jou6'ǂ< C*2;8'/^ o=XAH8Z 琢W!r+6"ZMk# % 0D 0 UNm N  z ? ? z  ^ ] i /wN4E mb 0 B 0 D3y D- 0K AS$w 0== A 04HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0($$   1  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt+ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5J~'|3|xU- -(|G2{{$ !.8Rdd8         0   d(|3G$ !.8Rdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_XYE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Rdd8     X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK&c$""0 !.8Rdd8     _   R89XXdd8@ttP$RINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#RP$ #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsSeptember25,2001 L X9XR #RXX9##PERRY_SALEEM_ԀLEEv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX9XR  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWilliamsonCounty  J @@No.1100374R.E.LeeDavies,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200101141CCAR3PCFiledDecember13,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thepetitioner,Perry_Saleem_ԀL#RXX9#X9XRee,appealsthedismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionreliefby x  theWilliamsonCountyCircuitCourt,whichheldthatthepetitionersclaimsforreliefhadbeen d eitherpreviouslydeterminedorwaived.Thepetitionercomplainsabouthisappointedcounseland P thestatespurportedshortcomingsinthepostconvictionprocess.Healsocomplainsaboutthetrial < courtnotallowinganamendmenttothepetition,notallowinganevidentiaryhearing,andnotsetting (x forthfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawastoeachgroundheraised.Weaffirmthetrialcourt. d й Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  <   #RX9M#X9X.RJosephM._Tipton_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.RileyandAlanE.  Glenn,JJ.,joined.  Perry_Saleem_ԀLee,Clifton,Tennessee,ProSe.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;KimR.Helper,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; ` RonaldL.Davis,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andMaryK.Harvey,AssistantDistrictAttorney L  General,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. 8!  @@OO& OPINION #RXX9#X9XR #`" #RXX9 #  X9XR  Thepetitionerwasconvictedin1998ofaggravatedassaultandmisdemeanorassaultand $8 $ receivedaneffectivesentenceoffiveyearsintheDepartmentofCorrection.Thejudgmentsof %$!% convictionwereaffirmedonappeal.Statev.Perry_Saleem_ԀLee,No.01C019806CC00266, &"& WilliamsonCounty(Tenn._Crim_.App.June2,1999),app.denied(Tenn.Nov.22,1999).Inthat '"' appeal,thepetitioner,prose,raisedissuesregardingthefollowing:(1)thesufficiencyofthe (#( evidence,(2)thevictimsincourtidentificationsofhim,(3)thetrialproceedinginspiteofhis )$) reservationsaboutcounselspreparedness,(4)improperclosingarguments,(5)thereasonabledoubt p*%* instruction,(6)thedenialofhismotionforanewtrial,(7)theineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,and \+&+ (8)thedenialoftrialrecordsneededtoperfecthisappeal. H,',  4-(-G _  Thepostconvictionpetitionallegesmyriadconstitutionalviolationsregardingeventsfrom  thepetitionersarrestthroughhissentencing.Italsoallegestheineffectiveassistanceofcounsel  throughvariousspecified actsandomissions.Counselwasappointedandanamendedpost  convictionpetitionwasfiled,focusinguponclaimsofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Thestate t didnotanswerthepetitionasamended;instead,itmovedtodismissitbecausethepetitioners ` claimswereeitherwaivedorpreviouslydetermined.Thetrialcourtgrantedthestatesmotionfor L  thesamereasons. 8    First,weconsiderthestatescontentiononappealthatthepetitionwasproperlydismissed  ` becauseitwasnotfiledwithintheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.Itstatesthatthepetitionwasnot  L  filedwithinoneyearoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtsdenialoftheapplicationforpermissionto  8  appeal,althoughitnotesthatthepetitionwasmarkedfiledbythetrialcourtclerkonthenext $  businessday.Thestateacknowledgesthatthepetitionreflectsthatthepetitionersignedthepetition   onOctober10,2000,andthatfilingisdeemedtohaveoccurredwhenaprisonerdeliversapetition   to theappropriateindividualatthecorrectionalfacility.Tenn.S.Ct.R.28,2(G).However,it   assertsthatnocertificationorevidenceexistsintherecordtoshowsuchadeliveryoccurred.     Wequestiontheefficacyofthestateraisingthisissueforthefirsttimeonappeal,thereby \ negatinganyabilitytoresolvethismatterinthetrialcourt.Asnoted,therecordreflectsthatthe H petitionwasmarkedfiledbythetrialcourtclerkthenextbusinessdayafterthestatuteoflimitations 4 hadrun.Neitherthedistrictattorneynorthetrialcourtraisedanyconcernaboutthetimelinessof  p thepetition.Forallweknow,theyacceptedthenaturalinferencethatastateprisonerspetitionthat  \ isreceivedbytheclerkthefirstbusinessdayafterthetimehasrunhadbeentimelydeliveredtothe H correctionalauthoritiesformailing.Wenotethatallotherfilingsandcorrespondencefromthe 4 petitionerhavebeendeliveredbymailfromacorrectionalfacility.Wecertainlywillnotpresume   otherwiseforthepetitionundertheexistingcircumstances.Weseenomerittothestates   contention.    Asforthepetitionersclaimsforreliefpresentedinhisprosepetitionandtheamendment  thereto,weconcludethattheyhave,indeed,beenpreviouslydeterminedorwaived.Amongother l issues,thepetitionerraisedtheissueoftheineffectiveassistanceoftrialcounselinhisoriginal X  appeal.Thiscourtsresolutionoftheissuerendersitpreviouslydetermined.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. D! 4030206(h).Suchistrueevenifadditionalfactsarenowallegedtosupporttheclaim.SeeCone 0"  v.State,927S.W.2d579,582(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Moreover,havingtakentheopportunity #l! toraisetheissueofcounselsineffectivenessinthedirectappeal,thepetitionersfailuretoallege $X" allthevariousfactssupportingtheclaimconstitutesawaiverofanyclaimbasedonthosefacts.In $D # thisrespect,asistruefortheremainderofthepetitionersclaimsarisingfromtheconvictingand %0!$ sentencingprocessthatwerenotalreadydeterminedinthepreviousappeal,thefailuretoraisethose &"% claimsinthepreviousappealconstitutesawaiverthatbarstheirconsiderationinthiscase.See '#& Tenn.CodeAnn.4030206(g). (#'   Giventhelackofviabilityofthepetitionersclaims,thestatewasentitledtoproceedupon |*%) itsmotiontodismissandthetrialcourtwasentitledtodismissthecasewithoutanevidentiary h+&* hearing.Also,althoughitmaybepreferableforthetrialcourttorenderfindingsandconclusions  foreachspecificgroundforreliefpresented,wedonotbelievethatthetrialcourtsfailuretodoso  inthepresentcaseconstituteserror.Anyotherproceduralmishaporomissionbythestateorthe  trialcourtthatthepetitionerperceivestoexistisofnoconsequence. t   Finally,regardingthepetitionerscomplaintsabouthisappointedpostconvictioncounsel, L  weseenothingthatwouldwarrantrelief.Asthestatenotes,apostconvictionpetitionerisnot 8  constitutionallyentitledtotheeffectiveassistanceofcounselinthepostconvictionprocess.See $ t Housev.State,911S.W.2d705,714(Tenn.1995).Inourview,thepetitionersallegationsabout  ` counselcitingarepealedstatuteandincludingapreviouslydeterminedclaimintheamendedpetition  L  donotrisetoalevelofconstitutionalconcern.  8    Basedupontheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed.      `     h     ___________________________________ p    `     h     JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE