 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. State8/22/2005
s case violates the Constitutional principles announced by the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the aggravating factors that made the Petitioner eligible for a sentence of death, and which the jury found to have applied when it sentenced him to death, were not included in the indictment returned by the grand jury. The State responds that the Tennessee Supreme Court has repeatedly denied relief on this issue. The post-conviction court held that this issue was waived and, if not waived, was without merit.
In State v. Berry, 141 S.W.3d 549 (Tenn. 2004), the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed the specific issue raised by the Petitioner in this case. In Berry, the defendant asserted that the indictment was constitutionally defective because it failed to charge the aggravating circumstances relied on by the State to sentence him to death. The defendant cited Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona. In response to that contention, the Tennessee Supreme Court disagreed that aggravating circumstances must be charged in the indictment. Berry, at 561. The Court held that Rule 12.3 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that written notice of the State's intention to seek the death penalty be given to a defendant at least thirty days prior to trial and include the aggravating circumstances upon which it intends to rely, satisfies the constitutional requirements of notice. Id. at 562. The Court stated, "We have previously held, and we continue to find, that the provisions of Rule 12.3 satisfy the constitutional requirements of notice." Id. (citations omitted). Further, it stated, "So long as adequate notice and opportunity for hearing is provided for by our statutory scheme, aggravating circumstances need not be included in the indictment." Id.
In this case, we must follow the Tennessee Supreme Court's holding in Berry. Accordingly, we conclude that the State is not required to include the aggravating circumstances in the indictment. Further, because the State complied with Rule 12.3 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner had adequate notice that the State intended to seek the death penalty. The Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this issue.
D. Constitutional Arguments
The Petitioner next contends that his sentence of death should be set aside because it violates various provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Tennessee and international law. In response, the State asserts that similar arguments have been rejected by courts of this state. We conclude that the Petitioner has failed to raise any constitutional claim with respect to the death penalty that has not already been rejected by the appellate courts of this State. See e.g., State v. Odom, 137 S.W.3d 572, 599 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 850-52 (Tenn. 2002); State v. Keen, 31 S.W.3d 196, 233 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872, 902 (Tenn. 1998), State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 117 (Tenn. 1998), State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 542 (Tenn. 1993). Accordingly, the Petitioner's claim on this issue must fail.
IV. Conclusion
In accordance with the aforementioned reasoning and authorities, we conclude that there exists no reversible error in the judgment of the post-conviction court. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|