Assigned on Briefs August 7, 2019
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 03-04821 Lee V.
Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Isaac Scott, of
first degree premeditated murder, for which the Petitioner
received an automatic life sentence. The Petitioner appealed,
and this court affirmed the conviction and sentence. See
State v Isaac Scott, No. W2005-02902-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL
3837243 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Dec. 28, 2006),
perm. app. denied (Tenn. April 30, 2007). The
Petitioner then filed a post-conviction petition, claiming he
received the ineffective assistance of counsel and, following
a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. This
court affirmed the post-conviction court's denial.
Isaac Scott v. State, No. W2009-01256-CCA-R3-PC,
2011 WL 744764 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 2, 2011),
perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 26, 2011). In May 2018,
the Petitioner filed a "Motion for Plain and Harmless
Error Review." The trial court, treating the motion as a
post-conviction petition, summarily dismissed the motion
because the issues had been previously determined and the
petition was a second petition. The Petitioner appeals the
denial, maintaining that he is entitled to plain error relief
due to the jury instructions, the sentencing hearing, and the
jury composition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Scott, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; M.
Todd Ridley, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich,
District Attorney General; and Leslie Byrd, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
W. Wedemeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Norma McGee Ogle and D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., JJ., joined.
W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE.
Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner of the first
degree premeditated murder of the victim in this case. At
trial, the Petitioner's confession to choking the victim
and pushing her out of the car was introduced. Following
conviction, he received an automatic life sentence. This
court affirmed the Petitioner's conviction and sentence
on appeal. Scott, 2006 WL 3837243 at *1. The
Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief,
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing,
the post-conviction court denied relief and this Court
affirmed the denial on appeal. Scott v. State, 2011
WL 744764 at *1.
23, 2018, the Petitioner, pro se, filed a document captioned
"Motion for Plain and Harmless Error Review." The
motion alleged that the Petitioner was entitled to plain
error relief due to the jury instructions, the sentencing
hearing, and the composition of the jury. The Petitioner
requested a new trial based upon these errors. The
post-conviction court summarily entered an order dismissing
the Petitioner's motion, which it characterized as a
"Motion for Plain and Harmless Error Review/Petition for
Post-Conviction Relief." Noting the Petitioner's
2009 post-conviction petition and this court's
affirmation of the post-conviction court's denial, the
trial court denied the motion/petition as follows:
The [P]etitioner continues to attack the finality of his
conviction and sentence. The [P]etitioner is essentially
complaining that the sentence is illegal, that the trial
court improperly charged and impaneled the trial jury, that
the trial court failed to properly conduct a sentencing
hearing, inter alia.
These issues have been previously and conclusively determined
against this defendant. The [P]etitioner has filed a previous
post-conviction petition and other post-sentencing petitions
on this conviction and sentence. "The post-conviction
statute contemplates the filing of only one (1) petition for
post-conviction relief. In no event may more than one (1)
petition for post-conviction relief be filed attacking a
single judgment. If a prior petition has been filed which was
resolved on the merits by a court of ...