ÿWPC”2 …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µU:Ýw@ 4W k 0Dz 0J¾ 0T 0^\ 0hº 0r" 0|” 0† 0– 1u& 0d› ÿ U >U*E BoU*ŒB)¶DCß AM"o D3‰l¼m( 0@•qÕ½Fñbô 0 âüÚÞ2¸#´ê'v~ž)vÓ+ AOï0Æ>1 0D2 D/H2 Bw2˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLdÒ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ¦x¾e§x¨x©x{ªx«x¬xD­xD®x¯xÓ€Úƒç"#3|xºx(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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< Œ 9p`(Arial d< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òOctober€20,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxd bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with€or€preventing€aÏlawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€and€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engagedÏin€committing€larceny€and€kidnaping.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)€(6)€&€(7)€(1982€Repl.)Ï(repealed),€now€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(6)€&€(7)€(1991€Repl.€&€1996€Supp.).€Ì cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€1982€statute€required€only€a€showing€that€there€were€no€mitigating€circumstancesÏsufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€the€aggravating€circumstances.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(g)(2)€(1982€Repl.)€€The€statute€now€requires€that€aggravating€circumstances€outweighÏmitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(f)€&€(g)€(1991ÏRepl).€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò gÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝCertiorari€was€granted€in€òòTennessee€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€507€U.S.€1028,€113€S.Ct.€1840,Ï123€L.Ed.2d€466€(1993),€and€a€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€basis€that€adequate€and€independentÏstate€grounds€supported€this€Courtððs€decision€was€denied.€€òòTennessee€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€510€U.S.Ï805,114€S.Ct.€48,€126€L.Ed.2d€19€(1993).€€The€case€was€argued€and€subsequently,€before€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€had€rendered€its€decision,€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€òòHowellóó€wasÏreleased.€€Thereafter,€certiorari€was€dismissed€as€improvidently€granted.€€òòTennessee€v.ÏMiddlebrooksóó,€510€U.S.€124,€114€S.Ct.€651,€126€L.Ed.2d€555€(1993).Ì ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(1990€&€Supp.€1994)(Repealed).€€By€a€law€effective€MayÏ10,€1995,€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€was€completely€rewritten.€€1995€Public€Chapter€207,Ïðð€1.€The€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€which€is€the€subject€of€this€appeal€was€dismissed€on€AprilÏ12,€1995,€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€law€as€amended.€€However,€the€new€law€also€providesÏthat€ð ð[a]€ground€for€relief€is€previously€determined€if€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€onÏthe€merits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(h)€(1996€Supp.).€Therefore,Ïour€holding€in€this€case€applies€with€equal€force€to€the€new€law€since€the€statutory€provisions€areÏidentical.Ì çÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòHenry€v.€Mississippióó,€379€U.S.€443,€453,€85€S.Ct.€564,€570,€13€L.Ed.2d€408€(1965)€(ð ðTheÏCourt€is€not€blind€to€the€fact€that€the€federal€habeas€corpus€jurisdiction€has€been€a€source€ofÏirritation€between€the€federal€and€state€judiciaries.ðð)Ì- ù-(’(2êQ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑȰÑÑÚ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XòXXXÔÔ€ô²ÏôXXòÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÐÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBy€so€stating,€we€do€not€imply€that€jury€instructions€requiring€increased€verdict€specificityÏare€not€desirable.€€Indeed,€in€light€of€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€trial€courts€should€submit€verdict€forms€whichÏrequire€juries€to€specify€whether€a€guilty€verdict€is€based€on€premeditated€or€felony€murder.€€OfÏcourse€a€finding€on€either€or€both€will€support€only€one€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€òòState€v.ÏHurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€69€(Tenn.€1993)(Reid,€C.J.€and€Daughtrey,€J.,€dissenting).€€Even€though€itÏis€not€constitutionally€or€legislatively€required,€specificity€in€the€verdict€is€desirable€and€conducive€toÏaccurate€sentencing€determinations€and€effective€appellate€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòSchadóó,€501€U.S.€at€645,Ï111€S.Ct.€at€2504.Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€language€of€the€indictment€was€as€follows:€ð ðThe€Grand€Jurors€for€the€State€andÏCounty€aforesaid,€upon€their€oath€present€and€say€that€James€David€Carter€on€or€about€the€17th€dayÏof€February€1984,€in€the€State€and€County€aforesaid€did€unlawfully,€willfully,€deliberately,€maliciouslyÏand€with€premeditation€did€shoot€and€kill€Clarence€Allen€Lile,€by€means€of€shooting€said€ClarenceÏAllen€Lile,€with€a€certain€dangerous€and€deadly€weapon,€to€wit:€a€.32€pistol,€that€said€murder€wasÏperpetrated€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€the€commission€of€one,€more€than€one,€or€all€ofÏthe€following€felonies€to€wit:€kidnaping€of€Clarence€Allen€Lile,€armed€robbery€of€Clarence€Allen€Lile,Ïand€or€grand€larceny€of€a€vehicle€in€the€lawful€possession€of€Clarence€Allen€Lile,€Against€the€peaceÏand€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ððÌ ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ È ÑÑ Ú ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝCarter€concedes,€and€rightly€so€since€he€is€alleging€the€violation€of€a€federal€right,€that€theÏdistrict€court€was€a€ð ðcourt€of€competent€jurisdictionðð€to€decide€his€òòBradyóó€claim.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  Ý›Ò € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€#ÔÑ€1ÑÑ7€6XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  Ñò òØ ØÓ&€%%X°d&Ӝـ€ÙßR€()'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àÔ€#¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó óÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌJAMES€DAVID€CARTER,òòà àóóà àà àà à)à àœò òFiled:ó ó€€€October€20,€1997›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€€James€E.€BecknerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àGREENE€COUNTYÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSupreme€CourtÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03„S01„9612„CR„00119Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌÌÌòòÌÌÌAPPELLANTà àà àà àà àà àFOR€APPELLEE:ÌóóGary€C.€Shockley,€Esq.à àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌBaker,€Donelson,€Bearman€&€Caldwellà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌNashville,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKathy€MoranteÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€P.€CauleyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Berkeley€BellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEric€ChristiansenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÔ€#„Ôà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÌÌTRIAL€COURT€ANDÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED.à àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.€ÌÓÓà àWe€granted€the€petitioner,€James€David€Carter,€permission€to€appeal€toÏÑ , ÑÑ ` Ñconsider€whether€the€lower€courts€erred€by€dismissing€Carterððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€upon€the€grounds€that€his€claims€alleging€violations€of€òòState€v.óóÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992)€(Drowota,€J.€and€OððBrien,€J.,Ïdissenting),€and€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194,€10€L.Ed.2d€215Ï(1963),€have€been€previously€determined€by€the€federal€district€court,€and€that€hisÏclaim€challenging€the€constitutionality€of€the€reasonable€doubt€instruction€givenÏat€his€trial,€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€lower€courts€that€the€reasonable€doubt€jury€instructionÏgiven€at€Carterððs€trial€did€not€violate€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó,€489€U.S.€39,€111€S.Ct.Ï328,€112€L.Ed.2d€339€(1990)€and€its€progeny€and€that€the€òòBradyóó€claim€wasÏpreviously€determined€by€the€federal€district€court.€€Moreover,€even€thoughÏCarterððs€òòMiddlebrooksóó€claim€was€not€previously€determined€since€the€federalÏdistrict€court€was€not€a€ð ðcourt€of€competent€jurisdictionðð€to€resolve€the€state€lawÏissue,€we€hold€that€in€the€context€of€this€case,€òòMiddlebrooksóó€does€not€precludeÏreliance€upon€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€as€a€basis€forÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€upholding€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€Carterððs€petition€isÏaffirmed€as€modified.ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àThe€petitioner,€James€David€Carter,€was€tried€on€a€one€count€indictmentÏcharging€both€premeditated€and€felony€first€degree€murder.€The€jury€returned€aÏgeneral€verdict€of€first€degree€murder€and€sentenced€Carter€to€death€byÏelectrocution€upon€€finding€that€there€were€two€statutory€aggravatingÍcircumstances,× ƒ+ ××  ×€and€no€mitigating€circumstances€sufficiently€substantial€to€call€forÏleniency.Ô€#ôÔ× ƒ, ××  ×Ô€#XÔ€€On€direct€appeal,€the€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed€by€thisÏCourt.€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241€(Tenn.€1986),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€479€U.S.€1046,Ï107€S.Ct.€910,€93€L.Ed.2d€860€(1987).€€Carter€then€filed€his€first€post„convictionÏpetition,€which€was€unsuccessful.€€òòJames€David€Carteróó,€No.€304€Greene€County,Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€filed€Sept.€14,€1989).€€Following€a€secondÏunsuccessful€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,€802€S.W.2d€223Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1991),€this€Court€granted€theÏStateððs€motion€to€set€an€execution€date€and€designated€April€3,€1991.ÌÌà àThereafter,€on€March€13,€1991,€Carter€filed€his€original€petition€seeking€aÏwrit€of€habeas€corpus€in€the€federal€district€court€of€middle€Tennessee.€€That€courtÍissued€a€stay€of€execution,€appointed€counsel,€and€subsequently€transferred€theÏcase€to€the€federal€district€court€in€east€Tennessee.€€After€the€transfer,€the€petitionÏfor€habeas€corpus€was€amended.€€In€the€federal€action€Carter€claimed€that€whenÏa€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€felony€murder,€the€use€of€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance€to€support€the€sentence€of€death€is€unconstitutional.€ÏWhen€the€habeas€corpus€petition€was€filed€in€1991,€òòMiddlebrooksóó€had€not€beenÏrendered.€€In€that€case,€€a€majority€of€this€Court€specifically€held€that€ð ðwhen€theÏdefendant€is€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€solely€on€the€basis€of€felonyÏmurder,ðð€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€is€not€permissibleÏbecause€it€ð ðdoes€not€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligible€murderers€sufficientlyÏunder€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution,€and€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€because€it€duplicates€the€elements€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.,Ï840€S.W.2d€at€346.€€The€decision€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó€was€considered€to€be€basedÏon€federal€constitutional€law× ƒ. ××  ×€until€this€Courtððs€subsequent€decision€in€òòState€v.ÍHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€259,€n.€7€(Tenn.€1993),€clarified€that€the€òòMiddlebrooksóóÏholding€was€independently€based€on€Article€1,€ðð€16€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.ÌÌà àDespite€the€independent€state€constitutional€basis€for€the€decision€inÏòòMiddlebrooksóó,€the€federal€district€court€considered€the€claim€in€the€habeas€corpusÏaction€while€ruling€on€the€Stateððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€By€ordersÏentered€in€November€and€December€of€1994,€the€district€court€concluded€thatÏsince€the€jury€returned€a€general€verdict€of€first€degree€murder,€òòMiddlebrooksóóÏdoes€not€apply€to€Carterððs€case€because€he€was€not€convicted€ð ðòòsolelyóó€on€theÏbasis€of€felony€murder.ðð€€The€federal€district€court€also€granted€the€Stateððs€motionÏfor€summary€judgment€on€Carterððs€alleged€òòBradyóó€violations.ÌÌà àFollowing€this€disposition€in€federal€court,€Carter€filed€his€third€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€in€state€court€on€January€30,€1995.€€As€grounds€for€relief,ÏCarter€alleged€that€the€trial€court€instructions€on€reasonable€doubt€at€his€trialÍviolated€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó,€498€U.S.€39,€111€S.Ct.€328,€112€L.Ed.2d€339€(1990),Ïthat€the€State€failed€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence€in€violation€of€òòBradyóó€andÏthat€his€sentence€of€death€violated€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€The€trial€court€dismissedÏCarterððs€post„conviction€petition,€finding€that€the€asserted€violations€ofÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€and€òòBradyóó€€had€been€previously€determined€by€the€federal€districtÏcourt€and€that€the€alleged€error€in€the€reasonable€doubt€jury€instructions€wasÏwithout€merit.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal,Ïand€also€found,€as€did€the€federal€district€court,€that€òòMiddlebrooksóó€does€not€applyÏunless€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€ð ðsolely€on€the€basis€ofÏfelony€murder.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€840€S.W.2d€at€346.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€CarterððsÏapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€and€now€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals.ÌÌÌò òòòà@ àPREVIOUSLY€DETERMINEDÌà@ àóóA.€Court€of€Competent€Jurisdiction€„€òòMiddlebrooksÌóóó óà àThe€statutory€provision€relevant€to€the€defense€of€previous€determinationÍprovides€that€ð ð[a]€ground€for€relief€is€ððpreviously€determinedðð€if€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.ðð× ƒ/ ××  ×€€InÏthis€Court,€Carter€argues€that€the€jurisdiction€of€federal€district€courts€in€habeasÏcorpus€proceedings€does€not€extend€to€questions€of€state€law.€€Since€the€federalÏdistrict€court€was€not€a€ð ðcourt€of€competent€jurisdiction,ðð€to€consider€hisÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€claim,€€Carter€argues€that€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€erred€by€concluding€that€the€claim€was€previously€determined.€€TheÏState€responds€that€the€federal€district€court€necessarily€and€appropriatelyÏconsidered€the€state€constitutional€issue€when€it€decided€the€federalÏconstitutional€question.€€In€addition,€the€State€says€that€Carter€chose€to€assert€hisÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€claim€in€the€federal€forum€and€should€be€bound€by€that€courtððsÏdecision€on€the€claim.ÌÌà àIt€is€well„settled€that€federal€courts€have€the€power€under€Article€III€of€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€to€exercise€pendent€jurisdiction€over€state€law€claims.€ÏòòUnited€Mine€Workers€of€America€v.€Gibbsóó,€383€U.S.€715,€725,€86€S.Ct.€1130,Ï1138,€16€L.Ed.2d€218€(1966).€€However,€òòGibbsóó€delineated€only€the€constitutionalÏboundaries€of€federal€judicial€power.€€The€jurisdiction€of€federal€courts€over€aÏparticular€controversy€may€be€limited€by€federal€statutes.€€òòAldinger€v.€Howardóó,Ï427€U.S.€1,€13„14,€€96€S.Ct.€2413,€2419„20,€49€L.Ed.2d€276€(1976).€€Indeed,€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€described€the€jurisdictional€hierarchy€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà àIt€is€apparent€that€òòGibbsóó€delineated€the€constitutional€limits€ofÏfederal€judicial€power.€.€.€.€Constitutional€power€is€merely€the€firstÏhurdle€that€must€be€overcome€in€determining€that€a€federal€courtÏhas€jurisdiction€over€a€particular€controversy.€€For€the€jurisdiction€ofÏfederal€courts€is€limited€not€only€by€the€provisions€of€Art.€III€.€.€.€butÏalso€by€Acts€of€Congress.ÌÌÌÓÓòòOwen€Equipment€&€Erection€Co.€v.€Krogeróó,€437€U.S.€365,€371„72,€98€S.Ct.€2396,Ï2401„02,€57€L.Ed.2d€274€(1978).€€Therefore,€in€determining€whether€the€federalÏdistrict€court€was€a€ð ðcourt€of€competent€jurisdictionðð€to€decide€the€merits€of€theÏstate€constitutional€òòMiddlebrooksóó€claim,€we€must€look€to€the€federal€statutesÏwhich€€delineate€the€subject€matter€jurisdiction€of€federal€courts€in€habeas€corpusÍactions€involving€state€inmates.ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€28€U.S.C.A.€ðð€2241(c)(3)€which€provides€that€ð ð[t]he€writ€ofÏhabeas€corpus€shall€not€extend€to€a€prisoner€unless€.€.€.€€òò[h]e€is€in€custody€inÏviolation€of€the€Constitution€or€laws€or€treaties€of€the€United€Statesóó.ðð€€(EmphasisÏadded.)€€Likewise,€28€U.S.C.A.€ðð€2254(a),€provides€that€ÌÓÓà8 à[t]he€Supreme€Court,€a€Justice€thereof,€a€circuit€judge,€or€a€districtÏcourt€shall€entertain€an€application€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€inÏbehalf€of€a€person€in€custody€pursuant€to€the€judgment€of€a€StateÏcourt€òòonly€on€the€ground€that€he€is€in€custody€in€violation€of€theÏConstitution€or€laws€or€treaties€of€the€United€States.óóÌÓÓÌ(Emphasis€added.)€€Even€a€cursory€reading€of€the€above€statutes€reveals€thatÏmatters€involving€issues€of€state€law€are€not€cognizable€in€a€habeas€corpusÏproceeding€and€federal€habeas€corpus€relief€cannot€be€granted€on€state€lawÏgrounds.€€òòU.S.€ex€rel.€Hoover€v.€Franzenóó,€669€F.2d€433,€443€(7th€Cir.€1982).€ÏCongress€has€limited€the€power€and€jurisdiction€of€federal€courts€in€habeasÏcorpus€actions€to€only€addressing€and€remedying€claimed€violations€of€federalÏlaw.€€òòIdóó.€€Indeed,€several€cases€explicitly€state€that€federal€courts€have€noÍjurisdiction€over€state€law€claims€in€habeas€corpus€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòEstelleÏv.€McGuireóó,€502€U.S.€62,€112€S.Ct.€475,€479„80,€79€L.Ed.2d€29€(1991);€òòLewis€v.ÏJeffersóó,€497€U.S.€764,€783,€110€S.Ct.€3092,€3102,€111€L.Ed.2d€606€(1990);€òòPulleyÏv.€Harrisóó,€465€U.S.€37,€41,€104€S.Ct.€871,€874„75,€79€L.Ed.2d€29€(1984);€òòEngle€v.ÏIsaacóó,€456€U.S.€107,€119„20,€102€S.Ct.€1558,€1567,€71€L.Ed.2d€783€(1982);€òòRoseÏv.€Hodgesóó,€423€U.S.€19,€21,€96€S.Ct.€175,€177„78,€46€L.Ed.2d€162€(1975)€(PerÏCuriam)€(ð ð[F]ederal€habeas€corpus€relief€does€not€lie€for€errors€of€state€law.ðð);ÏòòParadis€v.€Araveóó,€954€F.2d€1483,€1493€(9th€Cir.€1992)€(ð ðWe€cannot€consider€theÏmerits€of€this€contention€because€federal€courts€lack€the€jurisdiction€in€stateÏprisoner€habeas€corpus€proceedings€to€determine€whether€state€law€wasÏproperly€applied.ðð);€òòFranzenóó,€669€F.2d€at€445€(ð ð[F]ederal€courts€in€habeas€corpusÏproceedings€have€no€jurisdiction€over€such€state€law€claimsðð);€òòGuzman€v.€Morrisóó,Ï644€F.2d€1295,€1297€(9th€Cir.€1981);€òòBeto€v.€Sykesóó,€360€F.2d€411,€412€(5th€Cir.Ï1966).ÌÌà àThis€limitation€of€habeas€relief€to€violations€of€federal€law€becomes€evenÏmore€apparent€when€the€history€and€purpose€of€the€relevant€statutes€isÍconsidered.€€Federal€court€jurisdiction€over€habeas€corpus€petitions€brought€byÏstate€prisoners€was€not€legislatively€enacted€until€1867.€€Congress€adopted€theÏmeasure€to€ensure€that€state€courts€afforded€to€state€prisoners€the€rights€grantedÏby€federal€law€through€the€Civil€War€constitutional€amendments€andÏreconstruction€legislation.€€òòFranzenóó,€669€F.2d€at€443.€€Since€the€review€of€stateÏcourt€convictions€by€a€federal€district€court€raises€concerns€of€federalism,× ƒ0 ××  ×€a€stateÏprisoner€must€exhaust€his€state€remedies€òòbeforeóó€seeking€federal€habeas€relief.€ÏòòEx€Parte€Royallóó,€117€U.S.€241,€6€S.Ct.€734,€29€L.Ed.€868€(1886);€28€U.S.C.A.Ïðð2254€(b)€&€(c).€€This€requirement€alleviates€the€tension€inherent€in€federalÏreview€of€state€convictions€by€affording€state€courts€an€opportunity€to€first€correctÏerrors€of€federal€law.€€òòFay€v.€Noiaóó,€372€U.S.€391,€418„19,€83€S.Ct.€822,€837„38,€9ÏL.Ed.2d€837€(1963).€€Since€federal€habeas€corpus€review€is€available€only€as€theÏòòfinalóó€stop€on€a€state€prisonerððs€quest€for€redress€of€violations€of€òòfederalóó€rights,€itÏwould€be€anomalous,€indeed,€to€conclude€that€a€federal€district€court€has€theÏpower€to€òòinitiallyóó€consider€an€alleged€òòstateóó€constitutional€violation.€€òòFranzenóó,€669ÍF.2d€at€445.ÌÌà àMoreover,€since€this€is€a€question€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€the€StateððsÏassertion€that€Carter€chose€the€forum€and€should€now€be€bound€by€the€federalÏcourtððs€decision€is€without€merit.€€Unlike€personal€jurisdiction,€a€litigant€can€notÏconfer€subject€matter€jurisdiction€upon€a€tribunal.€€òòMeighan€v.€U.S.€SprintÏCommunications€Co.óó,€924€S.W.2d€632,€638€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€addition,€the€StateððsÏargument€that€the€district€courtððs€determination€of€the€state€issue€was€properÏbecause€the€decision€was€made€in€the€context€of€deciding€a€federal€claim€isÏwithout€merit.€€€In€none€of€the€cases€cited€by€the€State€did€the€federal€courts€òòfirstóóÏdetermine€an€issue€of€state€law.€€The€state€courts€had€already€resolved€the€issueÏof€state€law,€and€the€federal€courts€merely€considered€whether€the€state€courtððsÏtreatment€of€the€error€constituted€a€separate€violation€of€the€Eighth€Amendment.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòJohnson€v.€Mississippióó,€486€U.S.€1578,€108€S.Ct.€1981,€1986,€100ÏL.Ed.2d€575€(1988).ÌÌà àBecause€federal€courts€in€habeas€corpus€proceedings€lack€jurisdictionÍover€state€law€claims,€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€inÏconcluding€that€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€issue€has€been€previously€determined.ÌÌà à€€Having€concluded€that€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erredÏin€finding€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€issue€previously€determined,€we€must€next€considerÏthe€merits€of€the€legal€question€„„€whether€òòMiddlebrooksóó€precludes€reliance€uponÏthe€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€as€a€basis€to€support€the€deathÏpenalty€when€a€jury€returns€a€general€verdict€of€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.Ìà àà àÌà àOn€this€issue,€Carter€contends€that€òòMiddlebrooksóó€is€violated€by€relianceÏupon€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€and€he€urges€this€Court€to€holdÏthat€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€was€not€harmless.€€Emphasizing€that€a€defendant€isÏnot€convicted€ð ðsolelyðð€on€the€basis€of€felony€murder€when€the€jury€returns€aÏgeneral€verdict,€the€State€argues€that€òòMiddlebrooksóó€does€not€apply.€€The€StateÏalternatively€argues€that€this€Court€should€affirm€the€sentence€because€the€proofÏestablishes€premeditation€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€there€is€no€constitutional€or€statutory€prohibitionÏagainst€a€jury€rendering€a€general€verdict€of€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€whereÏboth€premeditated€and€felony€murder€are€charged€and€submitted€to€the€jury.€ÏòòSchad€v.€Arizonaóó,€501€U.S.€624,€111€S.Ct.€2491,€115€L.Ed.2d€555€(1991);€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„18„111€and€„112€(1990€Repl.);€òòState€v.€Coeóó,€655€S.W.2d€903Ï(Tenn.€1983).× ƒ3 ××  ×€€Moreover,€in€this€case€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€òòMiddlebrooksóóÏdoes€not€preclude€reliance€on€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€toÏsupport€the€death€penalty.€€The€defendant€was€tried€on€a€one€count€indictmentÏcharging€òòbothóó€premeditated€and€felony€first€degree€murder.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›€€Therefore,€in€theÍcontext€of€this€case,€the€juryððs€verdict€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€the€offenseÏcharged€constitutes€a€finding€of€both€premeditated€and€felony€first€degreeÏmurder.ÌÌà àThe€concern€expressed€by€a€majority€of€this€Court€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó€wasÏthat€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€does€not€sufficiently€narrow€theÏclass€of€death„eligible€offenders€when€a€defendant€has€been€convicted€solely€onÏthe€basis€of€felony€murder€because€it€duplicates€the€elements€of€the€underlyingÏoffense€.€€The€lack€of€narrowing€resulting€from€duplication€is€not€present€when€aÏjury€convicts€a€defendant€of€first€degree€murder€upon€a€single€count€indictmentÏcharging€òòbothóó€premeditated€and€felony€murder.€€òòCompareóó€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876ÏS.W.2d€57,€69€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€C.J.,€and€Daughtrey,€J.,€dissenting)€(WhereÏdefendant€was€convicted€of€both€premeditated€and€felony€first€degree€murderÏupon€a€two€count€indictment,€this€Court€affirmed€the€conviction€for€premeditatedÏmurder,€vacated€the€conviction€for€felony€murder,€and€upheld€the€sentence€ofÍdeath€which€was€based€upon€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance.)€ÏTherefore,€the€aggravating€circumstance,€under€these€facts,€is€a€sufficientÏnarrowing€device€and€no€constitutional€infirmity€is€present.€€òòCompareóó€òòState€v.ÏHinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€583€(Tenn.€1995)€(Reid,€J.€dissenting)€(Where€a€felonyÏother€than€that€used€to€prove€the€substantive€offense€is€used€to€establish€theÏaggravating€circumstance,€there€is€no€constitutional€prohibition€against€the€use€ofÏthe€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€to€support€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty.)€€Accordingly,€we€reject€Carterððs€assertion€that€use€of€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance€in€this€case€violates€òòMiddlebrooksóó.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Full€and€Fair€Hearing€„€òòBradyóóó óÌà àCiting€the€interlocutory€nature€of€the€district€courtððs€orders,× ƒ5 ××  ×€Carter€nextÏargues€that€his€òòBradyóó€claims€have€not€been€previously€determined€because€heÏwas€not€afforded€a€ð ðfull€and€fair€hearing,ðð€as€required€by€the€statute.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(1990€&€Supp.€1994)€(Repealed);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ìðð€40„30„206(h)€(1996€Supp.).€€We€disagree.€€Recently,€in€òòState€v.€Houseóó,€911ÏS.W.2d€705,€711€(Tenn.€1995),€this€Court€held€that€ð ða€full€and€fair€hearingÏsufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€previous€determination€occurs€if€a€petitioner€isÏgiven€the€opportunity€to€present€proof€and€argument€on€the€claim.ðð€€From€theÏopinion€of€the€federal€district€court,€it€is€apparent€that€Carter€was€afforded€a€ð ðfullÏand€fair€hearingðð€on€his€alleged€òòBradyóó€violation.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€lowerÏcourtððs€finding€that€the€Brady€claim€has€been€previously€determined.ÌÌà@ àòòò òREASONABLE€DOUBT€INSTRUCTIONóóó óÌà àFinally,€Carter€contends€that€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏerred€by€rejecting€his€claim€that€the€jury€instructions€on€reasonable€doubt€given€atÏhis€trial€violated€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó,€498€U.S.€39,€111€S.Ct.€328,€112€L.Ed.2d€339Ï(1990)€and€its€progeny.€€Specifically,€Carter€objects€to€the€phrase€ð ðmoralÏcertainty,ðð€used€in€the€instructions.€€Recently,€in€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,Ï734€(Tenn.€1994),€this€Court€held€that€the€ð ðuse€of€the€phrase€ððmoral€certaintyðð€byÏitself€is€insufficient€to€invalidate€an€instruction€on€the€meaning€of€reasonableÏdoubt.ðð€€The€phrase€is€permissible€if€the€context€in€which€the€instruction€is€givenÍð ðclearly€convey[s]€the€juryððs€responsibility€to€decide€the€verdict€based€on€the€factsÏand€law.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€instructions€given€at€Carterððs€trial€clearly€conveyed€the€juryððsÏresponsibility€and€satisfied€that€standard.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àBecause€we€conclude€that€the€issues€raised€have€either€been€previouslyÏdetermined€or€are€without€merit,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€upholding€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€Carterððs€third€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€The€defendantððs€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution€is€affirmedÏand€shall€be€carried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€the€20th€day€of€February,€1998,Ïunless€otherwise€ordered€by€this€Court€,€or€other€proper€authorities.Ó  Óà@ àÌÓ  ÓÌà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFrank€F.€Drowota,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJusticeÌÌÌò òConcur:ó óÌÌœAnderson,€C.J.›ÌœReid,€Birch,›€Holder,€JJ.ÌÓÓ