Waller v State
| Decision Date | 18 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | 99-02034 |
| Parties | RONALD BRADFORD WALLER v. STATE OF TENNESSEEIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 210655
The petitioner was convicted in the Hamilton County Criminal Court in 1992 of first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and theft over $1,000, receiving an effective sentence of life plus twenty-three years. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in 1993; and the petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, presenting as issues, whether there was a variance between the indictment and the proof, whether he was improperly compelled to participate in a courtroom demonstration, whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal, whether his convictions constitute double jeopardy, whether the trial court erred in evidentiary rulings, whether he was improperly convicted because of prosecutorial misconduct or cumulative errors at the trial, and whether his convictions amount to a miscarriage of justice. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the petition for post-conviction relief.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court is Affirmed.
Ronald Bradford Waller, Pikeville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Ellen H. Pollack, Assistant Attorney General, William H. Cox, III, District Attorney General, and C. Leland Davis, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HAYES, J., and WALKER, SP.J., joined.
OPINIONThe petitioner, Ronald Bradford Waller, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner was convicted in 1992 of first degree murder on counts alleging both premeditation and felony murder; especially aggravated robbery; and theft of property valued at more than $1,000. The petitioner received a life sentence on the first degree murder charge; twenty years as a Range I offender on the especially aggravated robbery charge, a Class A felony; and three years as a Range I offender on the theft charge, a Class D felony. The latter two sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to the life sentence for an effective sentence of life plus twenty-three years in the Department of Correction.
On direct appeal, the petitioner raised four issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; (2) whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the delayed admission of alleged homosexual conduct on the part of the victim; (3) whether the petitioner's convictions of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery could both stand; and (4) whether consecutive sentencing was proper. See State v. Ronald B. Waller, No. 03C01-9212-CR-00429, 1993 WL 398452, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Oct. 6, 1993), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 7, 1994). This court found no merit to these issues and affirmed the judgments. See id.
On May 10, 1996, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief with the Hamilton County Criminal Court. After a full evidentiary hearing, petitioner's application for post-conviction relief was denied.1 In the present appeal, the petitioner alleges a substantial number of grounds for relief, which we organize in the following manner:
I. Whether an unconstitutional variance to the indicted offense of felony murder occurred during the trial;
II. Whether petitioner was improperly compelled to participate in a demonstration during trial and in the presence of the jury;
III. Whether petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel both at trial and on direct appeal;
IV. Whether petitioner's convictions violated principles of double jeopardy;
V. Whether the trial court's evidentiary rulings involving photographs, a writing, and expert testimony amounted to reversible error;
VI. Whether alleged improper comments, arguments, and participation in a demonstration resulted in prosecutorial misconduct amounting to reversible error;
VII. Whether cumulative errors resulted in a trial that was fundamentally unfair; and
VIII.Whether petitioner's convictions were the result of a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
After a painstaking examination of the voluminous record and a thorough consideration of the issues presented, we find no reversible error and therefore affirm the post-conviction court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief.
The facts of this case have been set out fully in our opinion on direct appeal. The petitioner testified at trial that he left San Francisco, California, on December 26, 1990, to hitchhike to his mother's home in Port Richie, Florida. He was twenty-two years old at the time, and was 6'1" tall. On New Year's Eve, he arrived in Cleveland, Tennessee, where he spent a few days visiting friends. On January 9, 1991, the petitioner was back on the highway, hitchhiking to Florida. His first ride took him as far as the interchange of Interstates 24 and 75. He walked to a spot where he could catch a ride headed south on Interstate 75 towards Atlanta. Two cars stopped, and he accepted a ride from the victim, Harold Jewell, in his red, 1975 Chevrolet Impala.
Sissy Holloway, the night clerk at the Quality Inn located at Interstate 75 and Ringgold Road, just outside Chattanooga, testified that she checked the victim into a room at 11:30 p.m. Jewell signed the registration card with the name Howard Johnson and gave an Atlanta address. Jewell was accompanied by a neat-looking young man in his early twenties. The petitioner admitted that he was the individual with Jewell.
Floyd Fuller, the Director of Corrections for Hamilton County, who also lived at the Beaver Creek Apartments, testified that in the early morning hours of January 10, 1991, he was awakened by loud screams for help. He looked out his window in the direction of the screams and saw two males outside in the backyard area behind the building next to his. The taller of the two was pulling the other back towards the neighboring building. Fuller jumped into sweat pants and ran outside while his wife called the police. The police arrived at the apartment complex at approximately 2:00 a.m. and, after surveying the area using flashlights, found nothing amiss.
Iris Anderson testified that she cleaned the victim's apartment regularly and, on January 10, she arrived at about 9:30 a.m. She noticed that the victim's car was gone, so she used her key to enter the apartment. Inside she was surprised to find lights on since she assumed that Jewell was not at home. She called out to him and then turned to the living room area where she saw his body lying in a pool of blood.
The petitioner testified that Jewell had offered to let him stay at the motel and then drive on to Atlanta with him the next day. The petitioner only wanted to shower and then be on his way. Once in the motel room, according to the petitioner, the victim, while pretending to retrieve some items from the bathroom, watched the petitioner shower through a clear shower curtain and then, once the petitioner emerged from the bathroom, propositioned the petitioner to take part in sexual activity. The petitioner testified that Jewell was lying naked on the motel bed. The petitioner further testified that he refused, and the victim then forced him at gunpoint to ride to the victim's home which was not in Atlanta but at the Beaver Creek Apartments, some ten-minutes' drive away.
The petitioner testified that when he and the victim reached the apartment in the early hours of January 10, the victim, still holding a gun on him, told him to get undressed. The petitioner then described a struggle that included his reaching for a knife in his pants pocket; somehow flipping it open and knocking the gun out of Jewell's hand. In the struggle, Jewell partially folded the knife back over the petitioner's finger, cutting it. The petitioner testified that he pushed the victim down and then, with his jeans still halfway down, opened the patio door and hobbled into the grass where he fell down. The victim followed him; they both cried for help and continued the struggle. Finally, Jewell told the petitioner he could collect his belongings and leave. The petitioner's belongings consisted of a small daypack with a sleeping bag attached to the bottom; a jacket; and a shoulder bag in which the petitioner testified he kept a road map, his money, an address book, and a .25 caliber automatic pistol. The pistol, one shell, and the clip were in a smaller tan pouch inside the shoulder bag. At one point, the petitioner testified that all of his belongings were locked in the car. Later, in explaining why he went back into the apartment with Jewell after the fight, the petitioner testified that the jacket and shoulder pouch with the gun were inside the apartment. Wherever those belongings were, the knife, which the petitioner testified had sentimental value, was apparently in the apartment on the floor.
The petitioner further testified that, once back inside the apartment, a new fight ensued, with the victim reaching for the gun and the petitioner trying to stop him. At this point, the petitioner grabbed a knife with a porcelain handle that was lying on a cabinet. According to the petitioner, Jewell grabbed the petitioner's arm, bit the petitioner's finger, and continued to struggle to reach the gun that was on the floor. The petitioner testified that the two were standing up, and he cut the victim until the victim stopped as both fell to the floor.
When he saw the police arrive, the petitioner testified he ran out of the apartment and hid in some bushes because he was frightened. He took off...
To continue reading
Request your trial