APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Frank Crittenden, appeals as of right the Morgan County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This cause comes to us on a common law writ of certiorari to review a fee dispute in a post-conviction proceeding involving an indigent defendant, David McNish. The issue is whether an attorney appointed to review the records in a post-conviction proceeding may exceed the maximum allowable rates for attorneys representing indigent defendants. We hold that: (1) Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13 (1996) required an attorney performing services as an "expert" to obtain prior approval for an hourly rate in excess of the hourly rate provided for attorneys in Rule 13; and (2) the trial court should have explicitly set forth the approved "expert" hourly rate in its order if such rate was intended to exceed the normal hourly rate provided for attorneys in Rule 13.

The defendant, Thomas Dee Huskey, has been charged on four counts of murder, eleven counts of rape, fourteen counts of kidnapping and three counts of robbery. The State filed notice of intention to seek the death penalty. In November of 1992, the petitioner, Herbert S. Moncier, and a second attorney were appointed pursuant to Tenn. R. Evid. 13 to represent Huskey. Tennessee Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13 § 1 permits appointment of two attorneys for one defendant in capital cases. The petitioner sought additional reimbursement in the trial court for two additional attorneys, for paralegals and for various other expenses. The trial judge entered an order granting reimbursement for two additional attorneys not to exceed $ 10,000.00 and for paralegals at $ 15 per hour not to exceed $ 5,000.00. The order was entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the petitioner's appointment.

We granted this appeal to determine whether we should retain "the Distretti Rule1" adopted by this Court sixty-seven years ago. The rule provides that before a death will be considered accidental under the terms of an insurance contract, the means, as well as the result, must be involuntary, unexpected, and unusual.

On January 6, 1997, the trial court issued a community corrections violation warrant for failure to pay court costs, fines, supervision fees, and maintain employment. On May 5, 1997, a second revocation warrant was issued, this time for ag gravated robbery. On June 2, 1997, the trial court revoked Appellant’s community corrections placement and imposed his original sentence of incarceration.

In this case James Harrison Jenkins appeals the action of the trial court in dismissing his petition to modify a final decree of divorce.