ÿWPC˜ g>|5.|«®S‰Þ¡œh vý»”ÌdügŒà\sÑÆ²0™ï® ‰|øñm® qŠÝ:[‘ž8…5FXZ$éî)˜¢À”ÅŸ â­¸-!XL?ÑÛ~€— Àã9Çܘc®à·ÖÇ®ü%hd|TªCo^É Œ›µ³úÃ6Úωü@Cö •ó¨d'D¨µ{¯Iÿå{¼"ß×:Jý‹¶n¤jÏ/Å—4aÇ1wæÀÒ“Iõ-ÒGpP3´ŽÉã>< Ç¥ð˜´ÚüƒŸ°†×Á¹äW’¹­eý‘ðj«¥ÌS8îËb¾êa“äéê‡аç«„‘üÆ |ÕïÁí·]ûƒâ¡€ÉÄ錾õþ-¼d¾“ÕÎs#¨\SØÎ™Ó®9ŒÔšNr=‹Œ¯Â2Â÷³¨§¨"­úZ!EîâC3§Áte°å›\y¢¶O‚®h¼@0˜wïÆá– QhÌÝH‰^l‹Õðwç}ó„tUiÂé!nVcµBZ®s…³€Ò«+NᑨÍÇ£•Dæ ÔàÜü%&t7ü#™Læ'…GâéÉæßæivf>¹ˆu"æÂ0¾Þ>Ò’³E!]2ƒû´G½~2óMkÂút©‡‹û6Æ Õ èƒnï°ü¹”b#É\ %% Ö+ 0ˆ UN‰ ^ × wã zç Òa 43 NG I X ÆZ Æ ÆæƬ mrN‰‰‰E‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹b 0ë•••• B€€ 0¤ D3A D-t 0K¡¡ ASìÆ? 0¤ 0D© A«í˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» Baumgartner CrimWedemeyerBoucekNicholsSelecmanGilliamStricklandCURWOOD WITT(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9­/Ï  ˜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.wptóbï.ê:i¢×+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2z$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôú%ò»»Ô d(|3‡v$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡v$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C-»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼C-»»»ÔÑ8€yXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îJäC-ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼C-»îîJä #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€September€23,€2003Ð üL ÐÔ‡XyX»¼C-ÔÌò òÔ#†¼C-»XXy #ÔJOHN€ROBERT€TORY,€JR.òòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XyX»¼C-Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€57399€€€€€€Richard€Baumgartner,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„00019„CCA„R3„PC€Ð ¥õ  ÐDecember€29,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€opinion€adjudicates€John€Robert€Tory,€Jr.ððs€appeal€from€the€Knox€County€Criminal€CourtððsÐ xÈ  Ðdenial€of€his€1994€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€filed€the€petition€to€challenge€his€1992€jury€Ð d´ Ðconvictions€of€first€degree€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Following€a€hearing€in€whichÐ P  Ðcounsel€argued€but€no€evidence€was€presented,€the€post„conviction€court€rejected€the€petitionerððsÐ <Œ Ðclaims€that€his€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction€violated€double€jeopardy€principles,€that€theÐ (x Ðtrial€court€erred€in€not€instructing€the€jury€as€to€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser€included€offenseÐ d Ðof€first€degree€felony€murder,€and€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€demand€anÐ P Ðinstruction€on€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser€included€offense.€€Because€the€record€and€theÐ ì< Ðapplicable€law€support€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€we€affirm.Ð Ø( ÐÔ#†¼C-»XXyˆ#ÔÔ‡XyX»¼C-ÔÓ´ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼C-»àXy #ÔÔ‡XyX.¼C-ÔJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€andÐ ˆØ ÐòòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌM.€Christopher€Coffey,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€John€Robert€Tory,€Jr.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Braden€H.€Boucek,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð $"t! ÐRandall€E.€Nichols,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Marsha€Selecman,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ #`" ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓŽ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼C-»XXy½ #ÔÔ‡XyX»¼C-ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€received€his€convictions€at€the€hands€of€a€jury.€€On€direct€appeal,€theÐ ¬'ü"' Ðpetitioner€challenged€his€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction€and€the€imposition€of€consecutiveÐ ˜(è#( Ðsentencing,€and€this€court€affirmed€that€judgment.€€òòSee€State€v.€John€Robert€Toryóó,€No.€03C01„9306„Ð „)Ô$) ÐCR„00202€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€3,€1994),€òò€perm.€app.€deniedóó(Tenn.€1994).€€TheÐ p*À%* Ðconvictions€emanate€from€the€1990€robbery€and€murder€of€Michael€R.€White€in€his€home€in€KnoxÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âCounty.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€2.€€The€defendant€was€linked€to€the€crimes€by€the€discovery€of€hisÐ H,˜',ý Ðfingerprints€in€the€victimððs€house,€the€discovery€of€inculpative€evidence€in€the€defendantððs€home,Ð ° Ðand€the€defendantððs€confession€to€involvement€in€the€crimes.€€òòId.óó€à È àà  àÐ œì Ðâ âà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€filed€a€post„conviction€petition,€and€the€lower€court€conducted€aÐ tÄ Ðhearing€at€which€it€heard€arguments€of€law€but€received€no€evidence.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ `° Ðrejected€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€double€jeopardy€principles€precluded€his€convictions€of€both€firstÐ L œ Ðdegree€felony€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€court€held€that€Tennessee€law€allowsÐ 8 ˆ Ðdual€convictions€of€both€felony€murder€and€of€the€underlying€felony.€òòóó€The€post„conviction€court€alsoÐ $ t Ðrejected€the€petitionerððs€trial€error€and€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims€relative€to€the€failureÐ  ` Ðto€instruct€on€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser€included€offense.€€The€court€determined€that,€at€theÐ ü L  Ðtime€of€the€petitionerððs€trial,€second€degree€murder€was€not€a€lesser€included€offense€of€first€degreeÐ è 8  Ðfelony€murder.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àConcerning€the€double€jeopardy€claim,€the€issue€was€not€raised€as€error€in€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendantððs€trial€and€direct€appeal.€€In€fact,€in€his€direct€appeal€brief,€the€defendant€acknowledgedÐ ˜è  Ðthat€ð ðTennessee€law€allows€convictions€for€both€felony€murder€and€the€underlying€felony.ðð€€òòSee€JohnÐ „Ô  ÐRobert€Toryóó,€slip€op.€at€7.Ô#†¼C-»XXyg #ÔÔ‡XyX»¼C-Ô€Although€the€post„conviction€court€offered€sound€legal€reasons€forÐ pÀ Ðrejecting€the€petitionerððs€double€jeopardy€claim,€€òòsee€generally€State€v.€Blackburnóó,€694€S.W.2d€934,Ð \¬ Ð936„37€(Tenn.€1985)€(double€jeopardy€principles€do€not€bar€prosecution€for€and€conviction€of€bothÐ H˜ Ðfelony€murder€and€underlying€felony),€we€are€constrained€to€affirm€the€ruling€based€upon€theÐ 4„ Ðprinciple€of€waiver.€€Issues€that€could€have€been€raised€previously€in€a€court€of€competentÐ  p Ðjurisdiction€are€deemed€waived€when€they€are€knowingly€and€understandingly€eschewed€and€thenÐ  \ Ðraised€for€the€first€time€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(1990)Ð øH Ð(repealed€1995);€òòHouse€v.€State,óó€911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995)€(ð ðWaiver€in€the€post-convictionÐ ä4 Ðcontext€is€to€be€determined€by€an€objective€standard€under€which€a€petitioner€is€bound€by€the€actionÐ Ð  Ðor€inaction€of€his€attorney.ðð).€€òòóóThe€double€jeopardy€claim€is€waived.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àRegarding€the€trial€error€and€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims€relative€to€theÐ ”ä Ðfailure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€second€degree€murder,€the€post„conviction€court€correctly€ruled€thatÐ €Ð Ðsecond€degree€murder€was€not€recognized€as€a€lesser€included€offense€of€felony€murder€at€the€timeÐ l¼ Ðthe€petitionerððs€case€was€tried,€òòsee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Gilliam,óó€901€S.W.2d€385,€390„91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð X ¨ Ð1995)€(adjudicating€a€1990€offense€and€holding€that€second€degree€murder€is€not€a€lesser€includedÐ D!” Ðoffense€of€felony€murder),€and€that€the€case€law€later€establishing€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesserÐ 0"€  Ðincluded€offense€was€not€retroactive€to€affect€the€petitionerððs€case.€€òòSee€State€v.€Elyóó,€48€S.W.3d€710,Ð #l! Ð718„22€(Tenn.€2001)€(relying€upon€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€464€(Tenn.€1999),€in€establishingÐ $X" Ðsecond€degree€murder€as€a€lesser€included€offense€of€first€degree€felony€murder);€òòAnthony€HodgesÐ ô$D # Ðv.€State,€óó€M2001„03068„CCA„R3„PCòòóó€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€4,€2002),€òòperm.€app.Ð à%0!$ Ðpending€óó(Tenn.€2003).€€(ð ðòòBurnsóó€does€not€offer€a€constitutional€claim€for€relief€cognizant€within€aÐ Ì&"% Ðpost„conviction€proceeding€where€the€defendantððs€direct€appeal€was€concluded€prior€to€the€filing€ofÐ ¸'#& ÐòòBurnsóó.ðð).€€We€agree€that€there€was€no€trial€error€in€omitting€an€instruction€on€second€degree€murder.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€court,€however,€did€not€òòper€seóó€rule€upon€the€petitionerððs€claimÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€not€demanding€an€instruction€on€second€degree€murder.€€ThatÐ h+¸&* Ðnotwithstanding,€the€tenor€of€the€post„conviction€courtððs€order€is€dispositive€of€the€ineffectiveÐ ° Ðassistance€claim.€€For€purposes€of€assuring€a€criminal€defendant€his€constitutional€€right€to€effectiveÐ œì Ðrepresentation€of€counsel,€counselððs€performance€must€dwell€ð ðwithin€the€range€of€competenceÐ ˆØ Ðdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€€936€(Tenn.€1975);€òòseeÐ tÄ ÐStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€678-79,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064-69€€(1984).€€We€concludeÐ `° Ðthat€the€standard€for€counselððs€performance€was€€met€when€counsel€acceded€to€the€existing€law€thatÐ L œ Ðsecond€degree€murder€was€not,€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trial,€recognized€as€a€lesser€includedÐ 8 ˆ Ðoffense€of€felony€murder.€€òòState€v.€Benny€Wallaceóó,€No.€86„208„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð $ t ÐAug.€26,€1987)€(ð ð[Ô_ÔA]ttorneysÔ_Ô€may€not€be€said€to€be€ineffective€for€not€anticipating€rulings€thatÐ  ` Ðchange€or€alter€existing€law.ðð),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€these€reasons,€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€is€affirmed.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÔ#†¼C-»XXyU#ÔòòóóÔ€XyX»¼C-ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE