Donald Wallace v. State of Tennessee

This case has taken a rather Byzantine course through the Tennessee courts. Originally, the defendant was convicted of the 1996 first degree premeditated murder of Melinda Sue Perrin. This court reversed the conviction based upon insufficiency of evidence of a premeditated killing. We imposed a conviction of second degree murder and remanded to the trial court for sentencing. See State v. Donald Wallace, No. 01C01-9711-CC-00526 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Sept. 30, 1998) (Wallace I). In Wallace I, this court declined to adjudicate certain issues on appeal for lack of a timely motion for a new trial. Id., slip op. at 7-8. On remand, the court imposed a sentence of 25 years, and this court affirmed the sentence. See State v. Donald Wallace, No. M1999-00954-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Nov. 29, 1999) (Wallace II). During the pendency of the sentencing appeal, the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court denied relief except to grant the defendant a new opportunity to file a motion for new trial and an appeal. See Donald Wallace v. State, No. M2001-02722-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Dec. 9, 2002) (Wallace III). The post-conviction ruling was not appealed, but after the trial court denied the defendant's new motion for new trial, the defendant appealed the denial of the motion, resulting in the opinion in Wallace III. In that opinion, this court held that the defendant was entitled to no statutory delayed appeal and that the post-conviction court had erred in availing a new opportunity for a new trial motion and appeal without requiring a showing of prejudice as a prerequisite of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Wallace III, slip op. at 5-8. Our supreme court granted an appeal, reversed, and remanded the case to this court for adjudication of the issues raised in the dispensatory motion for new trial and appeal in Wallace III. See Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 (Tenn. 2003) (Wallace IV). We now undertake to fulfill the terms of the supreme court's remand by determining whether (1) the trial court erred in allowing the state to use hearsay evidence and (2) the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct that deprived the defendant of due process and a fair trial. Upon our review, we discern no reversible error and affirm the conviction of second degree murder.