ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë AQ) Æz 0D@ 0@„ 0DÄ U* D/2 Ba B~ D3› B)Î DC÷ AM: 1‡ v~¸ vÓ6˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ZE[\H]H^_`UabDcÓ€¸LË$3|xn2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Arial(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJune€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€Õ4XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€!ÙßR€,-+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà0 àà àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9704„CR„00149Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellant/Cross„Appellee,ò òà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSEVIER›€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€BEN€W.€HOOPER,€III,ÏJUDGEó óÌò òSTEWART€W.€œPAIT›,€à àà àà à)€€€€€€€ó óà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó óà àÌà àAppellee/Cross„Appellant.à àò ò)à à(POST„CONVICTION)€Ìó óÌÌÌFOR€THE€œAPPELLEE›à àà àà àòòà àóóFOR€THE€œAPPELLANT›ÌòòœCROSS„APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòCROSS„APPELLEEóó:Ì›Ìò òSTEWART€W.€œPAIT›,€òòó ópro€seò òóóà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó ó#135240,€œS.T.S.R.C.F.›,€Unit€12à àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌRoute€4,€Box€600ÌœPikeville›,€TN€37367à àà àò òà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€œBEHAN›€Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALFRED€C.€œSCHMUTZER›,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€General€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òSTEVEN€E.€œHAWKINS›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€Avenue,€Room€301„EÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœSevierville›,€TN€37862ÌÌÌœOPINION›€FILED€________________________ÌÌœJUDGMENT€DISMISSING€PETITION€FOR€POST„CONVICTION€RELIEF€ISÏAFFIRMED;€ORDER€GRANTING€A€NEW€SENTENCING€HEARING€ANDÏSETTING€ASIDE€PRIOR€JUDGMENT€DISMISSING€PETITION€FOR€POST„CONVICTION€RELIEF€IS€REVERSED›ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€%°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€%ŠÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€case€before€this€Court€is€a€consolidation€of€two€appeals.€€The€first€is€theÏStateððs€extraordinary€appeal€filed€pursuant€to€Rule€10€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure,€seeking€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€attempt€to€set€aside€itsÏprevious€order€denying€post„conviction€relief€to€Petitioner,€Stewart€W.€Pait,€and€itsÏattempt€to€grant€Petitioner€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€The€second€is€PetitionerððsÏappeal€of€the€trial€courtððs€original€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€InÏthis€appeal,€the€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€was€without€jurisdiction€when€it€setÏaside€its€prior€order€of€dismissal€of€Petitionerððs€post„conviction€petition.€€The€StateÏfurther€submits€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€order€allowing€a€new€sentence€forÏPetitioner.€€Finally,€the€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€correctly€denied€PetitionerððsÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€its€first€order.€€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€wasÏwithout€jurisdiction€to€œset€aside€its€initial€judgment€and›€that€Petitionerððs€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€was€properly€dismissed.ÌÌà àPetitioner€was€convicted€of€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder€in€theÏSevier€County€Circuit€Court.€€On€September€2,€1991,€this€Court€affirmed€PetitionerððsÏconviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stewart€W.€Paitóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03„C„01„9103„CR„00076,ÏSevier€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€3,€1991).€€Petitioner€waived€hisÏright€to€file€a€Rule€11€application€to€the€supreme€court.€€ÌÌà àThereafter,€Petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€April€25,€1994,Ïand€amended€that€petition€on€September€11,€1996.€€On€January€31,€1997,€the€trialÏcourt€conducted€a€hearing€on€Petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€andÏconsidered€Petitionerððs€numerous€claims€in€the€following€three€categories:€ex€postÏfacto€sentencing,€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€prosecutorial€misconduct.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€from€the€evidence€that€the€offense€for€which€Petitioner€wasÏconvicted€occurred€on€November€3,€1989,€and€that€Petitioner€was€lawfullyÏsentenced€in€accordance€with€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€TheÏcourt€also€found€that€Petitionerððs€sentence€was€properly€enhanced€and€that€the€juryÏinstructions€given€œwere›€proper.€€The€trial€court€further€found€that€Petitioner€receivedÏthe€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€that€there€was€no€prosecutorial€misconduct,€thatÏthe€trial€judge€sentenced€Petitioner€within€Range€I,€and€that€there€was€no€prejudiceÏregarding€the€range€of€punishment€notice€filed€by€the€State.€€The€trial€court€thenÏdismissed€Petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€ÌÌà àPetitioner€timely€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€onÏFebruary€12,€1997.€€On€February€25,€1997,€Petitioner€then€filed€a€motion€requestingÏthat€the€trial€court€rule€on€all€issues€in€his€petition€and€to€reconsider€the€sentencingÏissue.€€On€April€14,€1997,€some€fifty„five€(55)€days€after€the€order€was€enteredÏdismissing€the€post„conviction€petition,€the€trial€court€attempted€to€set€aside€its€priorÍjudgment€and€ordered€that€Petitioner€was€entitled€to€be€œresentenced›€pursuant€to€theÏrulings€in€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879€(Tenn.€1993)€and€€òòState€v.€Slateóó,ÏC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00352,€Sevier€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏOct.€18,€1996).€It€is€from€this€order€that€the€State€appeals.€€œThe›€Petitionerððs€appealÏof€the€trial€courtððs€original€dismissal€of€his€post„conviction€petition,€and€the€StateððsÏRule€10€extraordinary€œappeal€were€consolidated€for€appeal.›€€à àà à̛̜Ìà@ àI.€€Jurisdictionà àÌà àà àà àà àÌ€€€€€€€€€€On€January€31,€1997,€the€trial€court€specifically€found€that€no€ex€post€factoÏproblem€existed€since€Petitioner€committed€his€crime€after€November€1,€1989,€andÏbecause€he€was€convicted€and€sentenced€after€that€date€as€well.€Petitioner€filed€aÏnotice€of€appeal€on€February€12,€1997.€€On€April€14,€1997,€the€trial€court€set€asideÏits€previous€order€dismissing€Petitionerððs€post„conviction€petition.€€The€trial€courtÏfurther€ordered€that€Petitioner€be€granted€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€The€trial€courtÏbased€its€decision€on€òòState€v.€Slateóó€€in€ordering€the€resentencing€of€Defendant.€ÏHowever,€€òòSlateóó€and€the€case€before€us€can€be€distinguished.€€In€òòSlateóó,€the€trialÏjudge€was€ordered€to€resentence€defendant€based€on€our€supreme€courtððs€ruling€inÏòòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879.€€òòSlateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00352,€slipÏop.€at€2„3.€€In€òòSlateóó,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€his€crime€in€œ1988.›€€TheÍsupreme€court€had€previously€ruled€that€when€a€defendant€is€convicted€before€theÏeffective€date€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Reform€Act,€but€sentenced€after€November€1,Ï1989,€his€sentence€must€be€calculated€under€both€the€1982€Act€and€the€1989€Act.€ÏòòPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€884.€œ€The›€defendant€must€then€receive€the€moreÏfavorable€sentence.€€òòIdóó.€€€The€defendant€in€òòSlateóó€was€resentenced€because€theÏappellate€court€remanded€his€1988€conviction€for€resentencing.€€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00352,€slip€op.€at€1.€€Therefore,€although€he€was€originally€convicted€inÏ1988,€he€was€not€sentenced€until€after€the€effective€date€of€the€1989€Act.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€Petitioner€was€convicted€and€sentenced€after€NovemberÏ1,€1989.€€In€fact,€Petitioner€committed€the€crime€on€November€3,€1989.€€Therefore,ÏPetitioner€does€not€get€the€benefit€of€dual€calculations€of€his€sentence,€as€only€theÏ1989€Act€applies€to€his€case.€€Neither€òòSlateóó€nor€òòPearsonóó€applies€to€the€case€òòsubóóÏòòjudiceóó.€€ÌÌà àFurthermore,€the€trial€court€no€longer€had€jurisdiction€over€the€case€and€couldÏnot€€issue€orders€affecting€the€case.€€When€Petitioner€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€onÏFebruary€12,€1997,€the€trial€court€lost€jurisdiction€and€this€Court€gained€jurisdiction.€ÏòòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,€937€S.W.2d€834,€837€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.óó€òòPeakóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€228,€229€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€ð ðOnce€the€trial€court€loses€jurisdiction,€itÏgenerally€has€no€power€to€amend€its€judgment.ðð€òòPendergrassóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€837;ÍòòState€v.€Mooreóó,€814€S.W.2d€381,€382€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€A€judgment€enteredÏafter€a€court€loses€jurisdiction€is€void.€€òòPendergrassóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€837.€€Moreover,Ïthe€trial€court€lost€its€jurisdiction€to€resentence€Petitioner€as€more€than€thirty€days€hadÏpassed€since€the€sentence€was€imposed.€€òòMooreóó,€814€S.W.2d€at€383.€€Based€onÏthe€foregoing€reasons,€the€trial€court€was€without€jurisdiction€to€act€as€it€did.€€€€€€€€Ìà@ àII.€€Denial€of€Post„Conviction€ReliefÌÌà àPetitioner€presents€seven€issues€in€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€We€will€address€the€issues€as€they€wereÏcategorized€by€the€trial€court€and€then€address€any€remaining€issues€at€the€end.ÌÌòòA.€€Ex€Post€Facto€SentencingóóÌà àAs€discussed€in€the€jurisdictional€argument,€there€is€no€issue€as€to€ex€postÏfacto€sentencing€in€this€case.€€The€crime,€the€conviction,€and€the€sentencing€allÏoccurred€after€November€1,€1989.€€Therefore,€the€only€sentencing€act€that€applies€toÏthe€instant€case€is€the€1989€Act.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌòòB.€€Assistance€of€CounselÌóóà àIn€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€the€courtÏmust€decide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Í(Tenn.€1975).€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trial,€aÏpetitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€thatÏhe€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€andÏthat€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€the€petitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€toÏproduce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.€Ct.Ï2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849ÏS.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€ÏTo€satisfy€the€second€prong€the€petitioner€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that,Ïbut€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€have€had€reasonableÏdoubt€regarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonableÏprobability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.ÏStateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994)€(citation€omitted).€Ìà àÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€Court€should€not€use€the€benefitÏof€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€òòHellard€v.ÏStateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€should€be€judged€atÏthe€time€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ïat€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€this€Petitioner€has€satisfied€these€requirements,€thisÏCourt€must€give€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€theÍjudgment€of€the€trial€court€will€not€be€reversed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.ÏBufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àWe€have€reviewed€Petitionerððs€various€claims€and€we€find€that€Petitioner€hasÏfailed€to€present€any€evidence€that€shows€that€his€attorney€represented€him€in€anyÏother€manner€than€competently.€€The€trial€court€found€that€his€attorney€ð ðdidÏadequately€prepare€and€investigate€the€facts€of€the€case,€did€pursue€a€motion€for€aÏchange€of€venue€which€the€trial€court€overruled€when€a€jury€was€selected,€that€theÏPetitioner€never€told€defense€attorney€that€the€tape€recording€introduced€at€trial€wasÏnot€him€or€had€been€tampered€with,€and€that€all€matters€complained€of€by€PetitionerÏwere€adequately€addressed€by€[his€defense€attorney].ðð€€We€agree€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings.€€Furthermore,€Petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudicedÏin€any€way€by€trial€counselððs€tactics.€€The€evidence€contained€in€the€record€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Petitioner€received€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌòòÌC.€€Prosecutorial€Conductóóà àÌà àPetitioner€did€not€raise€prosecutorial€misconduct€in€his€direct€appeal,€and€hisÏfailure€to€do€so€constitutes€a€waiver€of€this€issue.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).€ÏHowever,€even€if€we€deem€this€issue€as€not€waived,€it€is€still€without€merit.€€The€trialÍcourt€found€in€its€order€dismissing€the€post„conviction€petition€that€there€was€noÏprosecutorial€misconduct€because€the€trial€judge€sentenced€Petitioner€within€RangeÏI,€and€therefore,€Petitioner€could€not€have€been€affected€by€the€erroneous€Notice€ofÏIntent€to€Seek€Enhanced€Punishment.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌòòD.€€Remaining€IssuesóóÌà àPetitionerððs€issues€regarding€jury€instructions,€the€indictment€and€the€ð ðMorganððÏhearing€(issues€two,€three€and€four)€are€also€waived.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).à àà àà àà àÌà àÌà àPetitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecutor€to€declareÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€(issues€one€and€seven).€€These€are€notÏissues€for€post„conviction€relief€since€they€are€not€an€abridgment€of€anyÏconstitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203.€€Ìà àÌà àIn€closing,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€was€without€jurisdiction€in€setting€asideÏits€previous€order€dismissing€the€Petitionerððs€post„conviction€petition,€and€also€inÏordering€a€new€sentencing€hearing€for€Petitioner.€€€We€find€that€the€trial€courtððsÏoriginal€order€dismissing€Petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€proper.Ìà àà àà àÌà àTherefore,€the€judgment€dismissing€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€isÏaffirmed.€€The€order€setting€aside€the€judgment€dismissing€the€post„convictionÏpetition€and€ordering€a€new€sentencing€hearing€is€reversed.à àà àà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€ACREE,€JR.,€Special€Judge