State v. Eddie Glenn

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

DECEMB ER SESSION, 1997

EDDIE E. GLENN, ) FILED C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9703-CC-00115 February 6, 1998 Appe llant, ) ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk ) UNION COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. LEE ASBURY STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF UNION COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

EDDIE GLENN, Pro Se JOHN KNOX WALKUP Route 4, Box 600 Attorney General and Reporter Pikeville, TN 37367-9243 CLINTON J. MORGAN Assistant Attorney General 425 5th Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243

WILLIAM PAUL PHILLIPS District Attorney General

CLIFTON S. SEXTON Assistant District Attorney General P.O. Box 10 Huntsville, TN 37756

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE ORDER

The Petitioner, Eddie E. Glenn, appeals the trial court’s denial of his

petition for pos t-conv iction re lief. In this appeal, he argues that the trial court

failed to word its o rder of dism issal ade quately a nd urge s this Court to remand

to the trial court to evaluate h is claim of ineffective assista nce of coun sel fully.

The Petitioner filed his first petition for post-conviction relief on August 30,

1991, which was d enied by the tr ial court on May 28, 1993, and which was

affirmed by this Court on March 8, 1995 . State v. Eddie Glenn, C.C.A. No.

03C01-9311-CR-00362, Union County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, March 8,

1995). The Petitioner’s second petition for post-conviction relief was filed on

December 1, 1994 and was dismissed by the trial court on Octob er 29, 19 96. It

is from th e orde r dism issing his second petition for post-conviction relief that the

Petitioner appeals.

After review ing the record in this case , includ ing this Cour t’s opinion on the

first post-conviction petition and the allegations raised in the second petition, we

must conclud e that the general issue of ineffective assistance has been

previously determined and that any additional claims regard ing that issue have

been waived. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-112(a) (repealed). It appears that the

Petitioner now raises additional facets of ineffective assistance and new evidence

he allege s were not pre viously prese nted b ecau se trial counsel and po st-

conviction coun sel did not prop erly investiga te. However, our supreme court has

determined that a petitioner is bound by the action or inaction of counsel in prior

post-conviction proceedings on the application of defenses of waiver and

-2- previous determ ination. Hous e v. State, 911 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tenn. 19 95).

There fore, any failu re by th e Petitio ner or h is prior c ouns el in pre sentin g all

grounds for relief in a prio r procee ding resu lts in a waiver of those issues in any

subsequent post-conviction proceeding. Thus, the Petitioner’s claim of improper

jury instruction s has be en waive d. W e also conclude that the waiver issue was

previo usly determined in this Court’s opinion in the Petitioner’s first pos t-

conviction proceeding. Thus the petition for post-conviction relief was prope rly

dismissed.

W e conclude that the evidenc e does not prep ondera te against the findings

of the trial judge and that no error of law requirin g a reve rsal of th e judg men t is

apparent on the re cord. Ba sed up on a tho rough re ading o f the record , the briefs

of the parties , and the la w gover ning the is sues p resente d for review , the

judgment of the tria l court is affirme d in ac corda nce w ith Rule 20 of the Court of

Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

-3-