WPC7* Z0J74N=4LID'u=nzv 6#]AĢhcnZ;!-ܟ8gK8Ui .?`:ȭ,04v^EJ݀tiiR|{$$|Ѡ[Gh5whpEwW'-4kco$hץbې;׽t7+_`,᪕6XTVW3'm2J`hHR}5t*ZW"< }BVjuӥt{1C4*7qE`Ӊ4U(W) Bбcl SxQ<{0㩢rdx5] EM\o"sAP.=~nӦLBͿ XR(2錂WyO܀$1>2% vJE=~kwR@h|ׄ%|nX5-0b#\ %% UN+ 0y U N ^ O w[ z_  4   N   ^$ mN 0DE 0U 0 0 0 0 0? 0 0 0F 0 0 0} 00 0 0 0% 0 0U 0 0 0r 0" 0 bp! 0x! 0" 0" 0@#(#U@$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 02%2%2%2% B&& 0:& D5& D-' 0K@'@' AS'' 0( 0DH) A)\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularD1  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptEb0\P:i+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U w R!$      1    _OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonMay6,2004,inMaryville,BlountCounty,Tennessee,aspartofthis  Court'sS.C.A.L.E.S.( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal E ducationfor S tudents)project.(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  - -(// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x    MARYVILLEBlountS.C.A.L.E.S. CuppDrowotaAdolphoMarneycontain[edTiptoncolorableReco[r]dPetition[erStrickland(I Z(Times New Roman (|G2!$ !.8\!dXXd8         0   d(|3T$ !.8\!dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3T$ !.8\!dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\!dd8     __   \!8XXdd84\!\!@ 4D4\!INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE & @WW!HEARDATMARYVILLE #  1      #4\!4D;#Ԉ L   May6,2004Session "r  CONNIELEEARNOLDv.STATEOFTENNESSEE  F  4XX4\!@@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals l  CriminalCourtforCarterCounty X  @@No.15534RobertE.Cupp,Judge D  @@*AV) ` dE<` A X  @@TTNo.E2003-00691-SC-R11-PCXXX4XԀFiledAugust31,2004#4XXXX͉# S  AV) ` dE<` A +    Wegrantedpermissiontoappealtodeterminewhetherthepetitionerspetitionforpostconviction  reliefstatesacolorableclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Weholdthatthepetitiondoes  stateacolorableclaim.Therefore,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed,and  thecaseisremandedtothepostconvictioncourtfortheappointmentofcounsel.  T Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals  ^  Reversed;CaseRemanded  J   JaniceM.Holder,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF.Drowota,III,C.J., "r andE.RileyAnderson,AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined. ^ MarkA.Brown,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellantPetitioner,ConnieLeeArnold. 6 PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;and !  ElizabethB.Marney,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppelleeRespondent,StateofTennessee. "! @@OO& OPINION  $#   @ FactualandProceduralBackground  Z&!%   ConnieLeeArnoldwasconvictedofchildrapeandespeciallyaggravatedexploitationofa 2(#' minor.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedtheseconvictions,andthisCourtdeniedArnolds )n$( applicationforpermissiontoappeal.Withinoneyear,Arnoldfiledaprosepetitionforpost  *Z%) _convictionrelief.Thepetitionalleged,amongotherthings,thatArnoldstrialattorneywas  ineffectiveinnotseekingachangeofvenuebasedonthenewsmedias constantexploitationof  hischildrapecharges.    Thepostconvictioncourtsummarilydismissedthepetition,statingthatitwas fatallydevoid ` offactsandthatit contain[ed]bear[sic]allegationsofviolationsofconstitutionalrights,andmere L  conclusionsoflaw.Thecourtfoundthatthefactsdidnotstateanyproofofineffectiveassistance 8  ofcounselanddidnotshowanyprejudicetoArnold.Onappeal,amajorityoftheCourtofCriminal $ t Appealsaffirmedthedismissalofthepetition,withJudgeJosephM.Tiptonfilingadissenting  ` opinion.Thereafter,ArnoldfiledanapplicationforpermissiontoappealinthisCourt.Wegranted  L  theapplicationandremandedthemattertotheintermediateappellatecourtforreconsiderationin  8  lightofouropinioninBurnettv.State,92S.W.3d403(Tenn.2002). $    Onremand,amajorityoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsagainfoundthepetitiontohave   insufficient factsordetailstoavoidsummarydismissalandaffirmedthepostconvictioncourts   dismissalofthepetition.JudgeTiptonagaindissented,reiteratinghisbeliefthatthepetitionalleged   acolorableclaimregardingtheineffectiveassistanceofcounselforfailuretoseekachangeofvenue p inthefaceofadversepublicity.WegrantedreviewandappointedcounseltorepresentArnoldfor \ thepurposesofthisappeal. H   @& Analysis   p   UnderthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995,apostconvictionproceedingis H commencedbyfilingawrittenpetitionforpostconvictionreliefwiththeclerkofthecourtinwhich 4 theconvictionoccurred.Tenn.CodeAnn.40-30-204(a)(1997).Thepetitionmustcontain a   clearandspecificstatementofallgroundsuponwhichreliefissought,includingfulldisclosureof   thefactualbasisofthosegrounds.Tenn.CodeAnn.40-30-206(d)(1997).Bareallegationsthat  aconstitutionalrighthasbeenviolatedandmereconclusionsoflawarenotsufficienttowarrant  furtherproceedings.Seeid.    Onceapetitionisfiled,thetrialcourtmustdeterminewhetherthepetitionassertsacolorable X  claim.AcolorableclaimisdefinedinTennesseeSupremeCourtRule28,2(H)as aclaim,ina D! petitionforpostconvictionrelief,that,iftakenastrue,inthelightmostfavorabletopetitioner, 0"  wouldentitlepetitionertoreliefunderthePostConvictionProcedureAct.Postconvictionrelief #l! isavailableonlywhen theconvictionorsentenceisvoidorvoidablebecauseoftheabridgmentof $X" anyrightguaranteedbytheConstitutionofTennesseeortheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates. $D # Tenn.CodeAnn.40-30-203(1997). %0!$   Ifthefactsalleged,takenastrue,failtostateacolorableclaim,thepetitionshallbe '#& dismissed.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40-30-206(f)(1997).However,ifthepetitiondoesstatea (#' colorableclaim,thecourtshallenterapreliminaryorder.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40-30-207(a) )$( (1997).Thisordershallappointcounselforthepetitionerifthepetitionerisindigentandrequests |*%) counsel.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40-30-207(b)(1)(1997).Itshallalsodirectthepetitioneror h+&* petitionerscounseltofileanamendedpetition,orawrittennoticethatnoamendmentwillbefiled,  withinthirtydaysoftheentryoftheorder.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40-30-207(b)(2)(1997).    Inthepresentcase,Arnoldarguesthathispetitionstatesacolorableclaimandthatthepost t convictioncourtthereforeerredinfailingtoappointcounseltoamendthepetitionunderTennessee ` CodeAnnotatedsection40-30-207.Arnoldspetitionstatesthat L  8  8`   PetitionerfromArresttoTrialandReTrialwassubjecttoTheNews $ t Media[sic]ConstantExploitationofsaidChargesandNofairtrial  ` couldeverbehadinCarterCountyandCounselofReco[r]dDid  L  NothingtopreventsametotheharmswayofPetition[er]inhisDay  8  inCourt,andUnjustVerdicts,andIllegalImprisonmentforsame.$ ` x` x @oo(...   8  8`   PetitionerafterIneffectiveAssistanceofCounselwasfoundGuilty   afteraminitrialofadayortwoamockeryofJusticeitselfasit p shouldhavetakenweekstopickaJuryinaTownalreadysinceHis \ Arrest....H` x` x Readingthepetitioninthelightmostfavorabletothepetitioner,Arnoldallegesthathedidnot  p receivetheeffectiveassistanceofcounsel,whichisguaranteedtocriminaldefendantsbyboththe  \ UnitedStatesConstitutionandtheTennesseeConstitution.SeeU.S.Const.amend.VI;Tenn.Const. H art.I,9. 4   Theissuebeforeusisaquestionoflaw.SeeBurnettv.State,92S.W.3d403,406(Tenn.   2002).Accordingly,ourreviewofthepostconvictioncourtsdismissalofArnoldspetitionisde  novo.Seeid.;seealsoFieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,457(Tenn.2001).InreviewingArnolds  claimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,weapplythetwoprongedstandardsetforthinStrickland  v.Washington,466U.S.668(1984).UnderStrickland,anallegationofineffectiveassistanceof l counselmustshowthatcounselsperformancewasdeficientandthatthisdeficientperformance X  prejudicedthedefense.466U.S.at690-94.TakingArnoldsallegationsastrue,inthelightmost D! favorabletothepetitioner,weholdthatthepetitionstatesaclaimthatwouldentitlehimtorelief 0"  underthePostConvictionProcedureAct.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. 40-30-206(f)(1997);Tenn.Sup. #l! Ct.R.28,2(H). $X"   Arnoldspetitionallegesthatthemediacoverageinvolvinghischildrapechargeswasboth %0!$ constantandexploitative.Despitethisadversepublicity,Arnoldstrialattorneyfailedtorequesta &"% changeofvenueandfailedtoadequatelyquestionpotentialjurorstodeterminetheextenttowhich '#& theyweresubjectedandinfluencedbythisconstantandexploitativemediacoverage.Arnoldlinks (#' hisconvictionsandhisconsecutivesentencestohisattorneysdeficientperformanceandsuggests )$( thatafairtrialwasimpossibleunderthecircumstances.Specifically,heallegesthatthejury |*%) selectionprocessandthelengthofthetrialdemonstratea mockeryofJusticeitself.Underthese h+&* circumstances,weholdthatthepetitionstatesacolorableclaimandthatthepostconvictioncourt  erredindismissingthepetition.Wethereforeremandthecasetothepostconvictioncourtforthe  appointmentofcounselpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection40-30-207.    @  % Conclusion  `   WeconcludethatArnoldspetitionforpostconvictionreliefstatesacolorableclaimof 8  ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Therefore,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsis $ t reversed,andthecaseisremandedtothepostconvictioncourtforproceedingsconsistentwiththis  ` opinion.CostsofthisappealaretaxedagainsttheStateofTennessee.  L     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE