WPC 0U;ykjtd Dl*f7 o9=MjzпRA:߆ $ZKuQo q[ z=cz(quA v0Z!ۥ1"_fḍ/z~ioFDȢM-M*]/5I$U/ѹB9s=ojwY4 "}= @׎B.g>@\uFNYcʈ=Ĺ}sNV&+'Z =AN_E X*ɇs <,s;g7}XnqhX۲gSƟ ,`Bu] n}c7_RLN5dُ!w{5cFXlwaЙĕ 4v-=Zq+i֒AD詄=wvl0ۓ@*BG*':͂s*ܛ=mG* %Lw@R 0U:n4( 0  0D*U:ddddddddddddddddd B AQ  0D 0D 0DZZ D/ B D3X >?D@ADBCDDUEVFDGӀ(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  ,cAZ"Arial RegulareE%3|xR  ""  XXXXtXX   Ad FILEDXXt   October15,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXAppellateCourtClerk  XX   @T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7 @  `   1    TheappellantsconvictionsarisefromtheJanuary9,1991,murderofChattanooga  residentHaroldJewell.TheappellanthadacceptedaridewithMr.JewellwhilehitchhikingonI75.ThetwomenproceededtoahotelandthentoMr.JewellsBeaverCreekapartment.Allegedly,Mr.Jewellmadehomosexualadvancestowardstheappellant.Astruggleensued,resultingintheappellantbeatingMr.JewellandvirtuallyseveringJewellsneckwithabreadknife.Beforeleavingtheapartment,theappellantgatheredsomemoney,prescriptionmedication,andsomejewelryofthevictims.HethenlefttheapartmentanddrovetohismothersresidenceinPortRitchie,FloridainthevictimsChevroletImpala.SeeStatev.Waller,No.03C019212CR : 2 00429(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Oct.6,1993),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.Feb.7,   1994).((3 $ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7    `   0  (#$  0   3XX  *@T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7lXXdXXd7 @  `   3    Theappellantsprosebriefisfiftyonepagesinlength.Counselsbriefisthirtynine  pages. XX   @T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7 @  `   2    Ondirectappeal,theappellantarguedthattheevidencewasinsufficienttosupportthe  verdicts;thathewasprejudicedbythedelayedadmissionofallegedhomosexualconductonthepartofthedeceased;thathisconvictionsforfirstdegreemurderandespeciallyaggravatedrobberyviolatedoublejeopardy;andthatconsecutivesentencingwasnotproper.,cAZ"Arial Regular d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7    Gr )<,(j 8` `@E ` ttx$ rG@. . INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATKNOXVILLE@MM#SEPTEMBERSESSION,1998RONALDBRADFORDWALLER,) `     h   )  No.03C019702CR00054 h`  ` Appellant   h   ) TL   `     h   )  HAMILTONCOUNTY @8  vs. `     h   ) ,$   `     h   )  Hon.DOUGLASA.MEYER,Judge   STATEOFTENNESSEE, h   )    `     h   )  (PostConviction)    ` Appellee   h   )    FortheAppellant:   h     FortheAppellee: zr  RonaldB.Waller,ProSe  h     JohnKnoxWalkup  F> S.T.S.R.C.F.#205287 h     AttorneyGeneralandReporter 2* Rt#4,Box600    Pikeville,TN37>367>?403? h     EllenH.Pollack    `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral  (#    `     h     CriminalJusticeDivision `     h     425FifthAvenueNorth `     h     2dFloor,CordellHullBuilding `     h     Nashville,TN372430493 x   (#  !z  `  `     h      `     h     WilliamH.CoxIII  4$,   `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral  `     h     C.LelandDavis  &#  `     h     Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     Suite300,CourtsBuilding `     h     Chattanooga,TN37402OPINIONFILED:򀀀 ".'+ REMANDED DavidG.Hayes  3~,1 Judge  r4j-2S @+ OPINION    ` Theappellant,RonaldBradfordWaller,appealstheHamiltonCountyCriminalCourtsdismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.InApril1992,theappellantwasconvictedoftwocountsoffirstdegreemurder,onecountofespeciallyaggravatedrobbery,andonecountoftheftofpropertyoveronethousanddollars.   #  1      ׀Theseconvictionsresultedintheimpositionofasentenceoflifeplus   twentythreeyears.Thiscourtaffirmedtheappellantsconvictionsandsentencesondirectappeal,findinghisallegationswithoutmerit.   #  2      ׀Statev.Waller,No.03C01 tl 9212CR00429(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Oct.6,1993),perm.toappeal @8 denied,(Tenn.Feb.7,1994).HeiscurrentlyconfinedatSoutheasternTennessee   StateRegionalCorrectionalFacilityinPikeville. ` Afterreviewofthevoluminousrecordbeforethiscourt,weremandtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.@ff) Background #    ` OnMay10,1996,theappellantfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Withintheappellantsninetyonepageprosepetition,heraisestengeneralgrounds D)<"& forpostconvictionrelief;specifically,heenumeratesoverninetyseparategroundsuponwhichreliefshouldbegranted.Althoughthetrialcourtsubsequently ,%* appointedcounsel,thecaseproceededontheprosepetitionwithoutamendment.  AnevidentiaryhearingwasheldonthepetitiononNovember13,1996,andJanuary27,1997.OnMarch17,1997,thetrialcourtdeniedtheappellantpostconvictionrelief.Althoughnospecificfindingsoffactwererecitedbythetrialcourt,thetrialcourtsorderdismissingthepetitionprovidesinitsentirety:8 ` 1.Itisnotdoublejeopardyforadefendanttobefoundguiltyofpremeditatedmurderandfelonymurder. ` !` ! 8 ` 2.Therewasnoproofofimpropergrandjuryproceedings,denialofaspeedytrial,prosecutorialmisconduct,abuseofdiscretion/lackofcontroloverproceedings,miscarriageofjustice,andjudicialconspiracy. ` !` ! 8 ` 3.Theissueofreasonabledoubt/insufficientevidencewaspredeterminedbytheCourtofCriminalAppealsondirectappeal. ` !` ! 8 ` 4.TheproofshowsthatpetitionerreceivedeffectiveassistanceofcounselfromHankHill.But,assumingforthesakeofdiscussion,thathedidnot,thereisnoshowingofanyreasonableprobabilitythattheresultwouldhavebeendifferent. ` !` ! 8 ` 5.Theeffectofothererrors,evenconsideredcumulatively,areharmless. ` !` !  ` Theappellantfiledatimelynoticeofappealofthetrialcourtsruling.AftertheappellantsbriefwasfiledonJanuary30,1998,butpriortothecasebeingdocketedforappellatereview,postconvictioncounselwaspermittedtowithdrawbythiscourtduetoaconflictcreatedbyheracceptanceofapositionwiththepublicdefendersoffice,whohadrepresentedtheappellantattrial.SeeWallerv.State, 0)("& No.03C019702CR00054(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Feb.20,1998).TheStatefileditsresponsetotheappellantsbriefonApril17,1998.ByorderdatedJune16,1998,thiscourtorderedthatthetranscriptoftheappellantstrialbeconsolidatedwiththepresentrecordforpurposesofthisappeal.SeeWallerv. `0X). State,No.03C019702CR00054(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Jun.16,1998). ,2$+0 OnJune22,1998,thiscourtorderedthattheappellantsprosebriefbefiledasa 3,2 supplementtothebriefsubmittedbycounsel.   #  3      ׀SeeWallerv.State,No.03C01 5.4 9702CR000545(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Jun.22,1998). ` Thecollectiveissuesraisedbytheappellantinthetwobriefsallegeconstitutionalerrorrequiringreversalbasedupon:(1)fatalvariancebetweenindictmentandproof;(2)variousclaimsofdoublejeopardy;(3)numerousclaimsofprosecutorialmisconduct;(4)variousallegationsofthetrialcourtsfailuretomaintaincontroloverthecourtroom;(5)approximatelythirtytwogroundsallegingineffectiveassistanceofcounsel;(6)thecumulativeerrorofalldueprocessviolations;(7)denialofequalprotectionofthelaw;(8)unconstitutionaldestructionofgrandjuryrecords;and(9)anunconstitutionalreasonabledoubtjuryinstruction.@* Analysis    ` Withoutreachingthemeritsoftheappellantspetition,wefinditnecessarytoremandthiscausetothetrialcourtasthepostureofthiscase,thelackofadequatefindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawbythetrialcourt,andtheStatesfailuretorespondtothesupplementalbriefpreventusfromcompletinganykindofmeaningfulreview. ` First,thetrialcourtfailedtoenteranydiscerniblefindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawasrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.4030211(1996Supp.).Inparticular,thecourtsfindingsaremerelyconclusionswithoutanyfactualsupport,thecourtfailedtoaddressallissuesraisedbytheappellant,andthecourtsorder h0`). suggeststhepresenceoferrorsintherecordwithoutspecificallynamingthem.See 42,+0 supraBackground.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030211providesthat [u]pondisposition 4,2 ofeverypetition,thecourtshallenterafinalorder,and...shallsetforthinthe 5.4 order...allgroundspresented,andshallstatethefindingsoffactandconclusions 706 oflawwithregardtoeachsuchground.(Emphasisadded).Thedutytoenter h9`28 findingsoffactandconclusionsoflawastoeachgroundallegedismandatoryastheappellatecourtsmayonlyreviewthefindingsofthetrialcourt.SeeBrownv.  State,445S.W.2d669,671(1969).Notonlydothetrialcourtsfindingsfacilitate   appellatereview,but,inmanycases,arenecessaryforsuchreview.SeeTatev. l d State,No.02C019108CR00170(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,May20,1992), 80 perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.Sept.14,1992).    ` Intheabsenceoforalfindings,thefailureofthetrialcourttoincludeitsfindingsoffactsinitsorderdismissingthepetitionrequiresreversaloftheorder.Brown,445S.W.2dat671;Statev.Higgins,729S.W.2d288,290291(Tenn.Crim. 4, App.1987).Moreover,wherequestionsoflawarepresentednegatingtheneedforthefindingoffact,thetrialcourtmuststillshowallgroundspresentedandtheconclusionswithregardtoeachofthem.Littlev.State,469S.W.2d537,538  (Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1971).Inthepresentcase,the d\ trialcourtfailedtoenteranyfindingsoffactastheyrelatetotheappellantsvariousclaimsforrelief.SeesupraBackground.Additionally,thetrialcourtfailedtoenter ! conclusionsoflawastoallgroundspresented.Id.Wherethetrialcourtfailsto #  make aclearanddetailedfindingoffact,eitherorallyorontherecord,theappellatecourtis atacompletelosstoknowthebasisofthetrialjudgesdecisionandjudgment;assignmentsoferror[nowissues]andappellatereviewareseriouslyfrustratedifnotcompletelythwartedbylackofadefinitivefindingoffactbythetrialjudge.Brooksv.State,No.03C019507CR00204(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville, ,%* Oct.9,1996)(citingBrown,445S.W.2dat671). .',  ` Tofurtherfrustrateourreviewoftheproceedingsbeforeus,weacknowledgethedisarrayedpresentationofissuescreatedbythesupplementationoftheappellantsprosebrieftotherecord.Thetwobriefscannotbereconciled.Thepro 5.4 sebriefnotonlyexpandsthegroundsallegedincounselsbriefbutalsoprovides 706 duplicitousandoftenconfusingargumentwhencomparedtocounselsbrief.As d9\28 illustration,theprosebriefallegestwogroundsnotallegedincounselsbrief,  neglectstwogroundsallegedincounselsbrief,and,specifically,totheclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,raisesfiveadditionalgroundsnotallegedincounselsbrief.Wenotethatthebetterprocedure,facilitatingappellatereview,wouldbetosubmitonlyonemergedbriefaddressingallissues.AA@ ` Finally,becauseofthiscourtsorderthattheprosebriefbepermittedto   supplementcounselsbriefaftertheStatesbriefhadalreadybeenfiled,theStatedidnotrespondtotheadditionalallegationsandargumentraisedintheprosebrief. ph Additionally,theStatespositioninresponsetomanyoftheappellantsallegationswerebaseduponwaiveroftheseissuesduetofailuretoincludethetrialtranscriptonappeal.However,thispositionisnolongervalidasthiscourtorderedthatthetrialtranscriptbe consolidatedforpurposesofthisappealaftertheStatesbriefhadbeenfiled.@ ` Forthesereasons,thiscauseisremandedsolelyforthepurposeofpermittingthetrialcourttoenteritsfindingsoffactsandconclusionsoflawastoeachgroundallegedintheappellantspetition.Nofurtherfilingsorsupplemental ld pleadingsbyeitherpartyshallbepermittedatthepostconvictionlevel.Oncethetrialcourtentersitsorder,theappellantmaybeappointedcounselforpurposesofappeal,ifhesodesires.Irrespectiveofhispositionregardingcounsel,onlyonebrieftothiscourtwillbepermitted.ThebriefspreviouslyfiledBbythepartiesBinthisappealwillnotbeconsidered. ` Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversedandremandedinordertopermitthetrialcourttorevisitthegroundsraisedbytheappellantinhisoriginalpetition,and,thereafter,enterfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawasrequiredbythePostConvictionAct.PursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.29(a),oncetheFFrecordhasbeenfiledwiththeclerkofthiscourt,theappellantshallhavethirtydaysinwhichtofilehisappellatebrief.CCDD `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeE  4-3 ECONCUR:___________________________________JOHNH.PEAY,Judge___________________________________JOSEPHM.TIPTON,Judge