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 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 § 40-30-112(a) (repealed).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-