IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
MAY SESSION, 1998 FILED
July 2, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
JERRY DWAINE CAMMUSE, )
Appellate Court Clerk
) No. 01C01-9709-CR-00440
Appellant )
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
vs. )
) Hon. J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) (POST-CONVICTION)
Appellee )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Terry J. Canady John Knox Walkup
Attorney for Appellant Attorney General and Reporter
211 Printer's Alley Bldg.
Suite 400 Elizabeth B. Marney
Nashville, TN 37201 Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III
District Attorney General
Rosemary Sexton
Asst. District Attorney General
Washington Square, Suite 500
222-2nd Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37201
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
David G. Hayes
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Jerry Dwaine Cammuse, appeals the dismissal of his petition for
post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. On November 30, 1990,
a jury found the appellant guilty of twenty-two felonies, resulting in an effective
sentence of 150 years imprisonment.1 His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal
to this court. See State v. Cammuse, No. 01C01-9107-CR-00216 (Tenn. Crim. App.
at Nashville, Apr. 29, 1992), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Sept. 14, 1992). The
appellant filed this pro se petition for post-conviction relief in April 1995. In October
1995, following the appointment of counsel, the petition was amended. An evidentiary
hearing in this cause was held on April 7, 1997, and the appellant’s petition was
dismissed by the trial court on May 6, 1997. The appellant appeals this dismissal
alleging as error (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and (2)
prosecutorial misconduct.
Analysis
A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised, the appellant bears
the burden of showing that (a) the services rendered by trial counsel were deficient and
(b) the deficient performance was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984); Cooper v. State, 849 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tenn.
1993). With respect to deficient performance, the court must decide whether or not
counsel’s performance was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in
criminal cases. Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). To satisfy the
1
The appellant’s multiple convictions stem from his unlawful sexual penetration and
sexual contact of his three daughters, ages 10, 12 and 14. The convictions include two counts of
sexua l battery, four c ounts o f aggrav ated se xual batte ry, two coun ts of rape and fou rteen co unts
of aggravated rape.
2
prejudice prong of the Strickland test, the appellant must show a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s ineffective performance, the result of the proceeding would have
been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. On appellate review,
the lower court’s findings are conclusive absent a finding that evidence preponderates
against the judgment. Clenny v. State, 576 S.W.2d 12,14 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1978), cert.
denied, 441 U.S. 947, 99 S.Ct. 2170 (1979).
The appellant alleges that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel both
at trial and on appeal. First, he contends that his original appointed attorney, Terry
McConnell,2 after filing a motion to suppress, failed to call two witnesses at the hearing
who would have testified that, “Mr. Cammuse had consumed alcohol all day and
worked all night with only a couple hours sleep” and was in no “mental state” to give a
statement to the police. This argument fails for two reasons. There is no proof in this
record that two witnesses existed who would have supported this allegation.3 See
Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1990). Bare allegations are
insufficient to support proof of the claim. The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding
bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the allegation in his
petition. Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689, 697 (Tenn. 1995).4 The appellant has failed
to meet this burden. Moreover, the issue of the voluntariness of the appellant’s
statement to the police has been previously determined. Issues that have been
previously determined on direct appeal cannot support a petition for post-conviction
relief and are, therefore, excluded. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-111, -112
(a)(1990)(repealed 1995); State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373, 377 (Tenn. 1996). On
direct appeal, the appellant argued that his statement to the police was involuntary.
Cammuse, No. 01C01-9107-CR-00216. This court, on appeal, accredited the findings
2
Ter ry Mc Con nell wa s per mitte d to w ithdra w as coun sel pr ior to tr ial.
3
At the hea ring, post-c onviction c ounse l advised th e court tha t he had a ttemp ted to loca te
the two witnesses but they could not be found.
4
The appellant’s petition was filed in April 1995. Accordingly, the appellant’s burden of
proof was by a “preponderance of the evidence” as the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure Act
became effective May 10, 1995. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105 (repealed 1995).
3
of the trial court concluding that, “the appellant’s statement was voluntary, the appellant
was rational and coherent in his responses and the appellant’s emotional state did not
render the statement involuntary.”5 Accordingly, this issue is without merit.
Second, the appellant contends that substituted appointed counsel, Michael
Engle, was ineffective for (1) failing to object to hearsay testimony at trial, (2) “allow[ing]
perjured testimony during the trial,” (3) refusing to ask questions which would have
acquitted the appellant, (4) failing to have “an unexplained noise” on the “alleged
confession tape” analyzed, and (5) “fail[ing] to prove to the jury that there was an
ongoing custody battle between the appellant and his ex-wife.” Initially, we note that
nowhere is there found within the argument portion of the appellant’s brief any
reference to the deficient performance of trial counsel Engle. Accordingly, these issues
are waived because they are not supported by argument or citation to authority. Tenn.
Ct. Crim. R.App.10(b); Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)7; Harvey v. State, 749 S.W.2d 478, 479
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1987), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1988).
Notwithstanding this procedural default, the proof before us supports the
detailed findings of the trial court, concluding this issue is without merit:
Senior Assistant Public Defender Engle is a highly experienced and
competent criminal defense attorney who represented petitioner in a
thorough and diligent manner. In support thereof, the Court points to the
following: counsel made numerous contacts with his client in preparation
for trial; counsel investigated all allegations of abuse; counsel interviewed
several witnesses in preparation for trial, and also reviewed a wealth of
information provided by the petitioner; counsel conferred with prior
counsel, Attorney Jay Norman, and to that effect, reviewed records of the
juvenile court proceedings concerning alleged abuse by the petitioner of
his daughters; counsel submitted a lengthy and detailed Motion to
Reconsider the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress the
statements to police; counsel submitted motions challenging the
sufficiency of multiple counts of the indictment, two of which the trial court
dismissed, and, in the process, challenged the disappearance of
Department of Human Services records which contained information of
past investigations of the petitioner; counsel conferred with his client
during the trial and discussed the witness list; counsel reviewed proposed
5
We acknowledged that the appellant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his statement on
appeal was predicated upon the coercive nature of the police. Nevertheless, the issue remains
one of vo luntarines s which was de termin ed after a “full and fair he aring,” in bo th trial and ap pellate
courts. Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-30-112(a).
4
questions submitted by petitioner to be asked in court; counsel called
witnesses to testify for the petitioner; counsel conferred with petitioner
about testifying prior to petitioner deciding to take the stand; counsel
explained the result of the trial to petitioner and also spoke with
petitioner’s family about the outcome; counsel, at the sentencing hearing,
opposed the application of certain aggravating factors and submitted
mitigating factors for the court’s consideration; counsel filed a Motion for
a New Trial raising all pertinent objections; and counsel assisted in the
framing of issues for appeal. Finally, according to Counsel Engle, at no
time did petitioner complain about the representation he was receiving.
The proof preponderates in favor of these findings.
Finally, the appellant alleges deficient performance of appellate counsel, Jeff
DeVasher, on appeal. Again, we find it unnecessary to address the merits of this issue
as the issue is not supported by argument. Tenn. Ct. Crim. R. App. 10(b); Tenn. R.
App.P. 27(a)(7).6 This issue is waived.
B. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Next, the appellant contends that the assistant district attorney committed
prosecutorial misconduct by “using known perjured testimony” and by “deliberate
destruction of all exculpatory material in this matter.”7 The appellant bases this
contention on the claim that the detective who arrested the appellant gave “three
different statements at two different hearings, and, therefore, all those statements
cannot be true.” Moreover, the appellant contends that the State again committed
misconduct when it claimed it did not have certain records from the Department of
Human Services detailing several interviews with the appellant’s three daughters, the
victims in this case. This issue has been waived because it could have been raised on
direct appeal. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-111, -112 (repealed 1995). “[W]hen a
6
Included within the appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim are the additional
assertions that (1) the reasonable doubt jury instruction was unconstitutional, (2) the indictment
was fatally deficient, and (3) the indictments were altered. These issues are also waived because
they were not designated as issues or contained within the statement of the issues presented for
review and because they were n ot briefed. Tenn.R.App.P. 27(a)(4), - (a)(7).
7
The trial co urt, at the po st-conv iction hear ing, found no m erit to this claim , conclud ing:
“. . . the Court is of the opinion that absolutely no credible evidence has been presented that
would warrant such a finding. . . . In the Court’s judgment, petitioner’s assertions of misconduct
are based entirely on unfounded speculation.” We agree with this finding.
5
petition for post-conviction relief does not allege facts showing that the grounds
asserted for relief were not waived in a prior proceeding in which they could have been
presented, the petition does not present a colorable claim for relief and is subject to
dismissal.” State v. Smith, 814 S.W.2d 45, 47 (Tenn. 1991); see also Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 40-30-112(b)(1). This issue is without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court dismissing the
appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed.
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
GARY R. WADE, Presiding Judge
___________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
6