IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2016 at Knoxville

BRUCE D. MENDENHALL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2007-D-2738 Steve R. Dozier, Judge

No. M2015-02091-CCA-R3-PC – January 25, 2017

The petitioner, Bruce D. Mendenhall, was convicted in 2007 of first degree premeditated 

murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on direct 

appeal, and his application for permission to appeal was denied. Subsequently, he filed a 

petition for habeas corpus relief, which the court treated as a petition for post-conviction 

relief, alleging that trial counsel had been ineffective. Following an evidentiary hearing, 

the post-conviction court concluded that the petitioner‟s claims were without merit. The 

record on appeal supports this determination. Accordingly, the order of the postconviction court denying relief is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL, 

P.J., and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., joined.

Nathan D. Cate, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Bruce D. Mendenhall.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; M. Todd Ridley, Assistant 

Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Pamela Anderson, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

 The facts upon which the petitioner‟s conviction was based are set out in the 

opinion of this court on the direct appeal:
2

[The petitioner‟s] trial began on May 10, 2010. The victim‟s sister 

Roxanna Wayman testified that Ms. Hulbert [the victim] had a history of 

drug and alcohol addiction, and Ms. Wayman was aware that Ms. Hubert 

[sic] was engaging in prostitution at the time of her death.

Nicholas Turner, the head of security at the Travel Centers of 

America truck stop in Nashville, testified that he discovered the victim‟s 

body in the early morning hours on June 26, 2007. Mr. Turner found the 

body at approximately 12:50 a.m. He checked to see if the victim was 

breathing and “didn‟t see anything so [he] called 911.” He estimated that 

the first police officer arrived approximately thirty seconds to one minute 

after he made the emergency call. On cross-examination, Mr. Turner 

testified that he was training another security officer that night. The officer, 

Robert Nelson, left at approximately 12:15 a.m. Mr. Turner “had him 

basically tail [him] on [his] duties. . . .” While walking with Mr. Nelson 

around the truck stop, Mr. Turner showed Mr. Nelson a hole in a fence near 

where the body was found. Mr. Turner testified that prostitutes and drug 

dealers would enter the property through the hole in the fence. Mr. Turner 

testified that he had last checked the area where the victim‟s body was 

found at approximately 12:15 or 12:20 a.m., and he had not seen the body 

there.

Sgt. Robert Durbin was patrolling the area of downtown Nashville 

on June 26, 2007. At approximately 1:00 a.m., he was dispatched to the 

Truck Stops of America in response to a dead body. When he arrived, he 

met with private security officer Nicholas Turner, who took Sgt. Durbin to 

the area where the body was discovered behind some parked trailers. Sgt. 

Durbin testified that “it was plainly apparent to [him] that [Ms. Hulbert] 

was deceased.” She was naked and had “blood all over her head.” She was 

lying on her back and her feet were positioned with the soles together and 

her knees spread apart. Her left hand was stretched out beside her with her 

wrist turned up. She was wearing an ID bracelet, and the name on it was

clearly visible.

Sgt. Stephen Beck of the Metro police department arrived at the 

crime scene after Sgt. Durbin. Sgt. Beck noticed “some blood droplets” on 

the ground between two trailers. He also saw a “muddy area outside of the 

trailer going towards the area [where the body was found] and there was a 

footprint in there. . . .” Sgt. Beck testified that the footprint “seemed out of 

place as there were no other footprints in and around the area.”
3

Officer Tim Matthews looked in several trash barrels around the 

truck stop, searching for weapons, women‟s clothing, anything with blood 

on it, or any plastic similar to the plastic found under the victim‟s head, but 

he did not find anything. He also searched under the trailers.

Lt. Frank Regans was the supervisor of the crime scene. He worked 

in the identification unit. Lt. Regans took two castings of two different 

shoe prints found in the area of the victim‟s body.

Officer Charles Linville testified that the victim‟s face and head 

were bloody. There was also blood on the victim‟s feet. She also had 

scratches and bruises. He collected swabs from the victim‟s chest area, 

thigh area, and stomach.

Lee Meeks saw the victim in the evening on June 25, 2007. Mr. 

Meeks, the victim, and a man named “Hollywood” were “just riding around 

using drugs” in Hollywood‟s van. Hollywood stole “six to eight cases” of 

beer and sold the beer. They used the money from selling beer to buy 

“crack.” At approximately 10:20 to 10:30 p.m., they parked near the truck 

stop. Approximately 45 minutes after they arrived, the victim left the van. 

Mr. Meeks thought the victim was going to walk to White‟s Front Market 

to meet “her old man Derrick.” The last time Mr. Meeks saw the victim 

she walked between two parked trucks. The victim did not return to the 

van. Mr. Meeks and Hollywood left at approximately 1:30 a.m. Mr. Meeks 

testified that he did not contact the police when he learned that the victim 

had been killed because he had a criminal record. He was interviewed by 

the police while he was incarcerated for vandalism, and he agreed to submit 

a DNA sample.

Joseph Uhlir, a retired truck driver, had parked for the night at the 

truck stop in Nashville. He testified that he arrived “roughly maybe about 

11:00 to the 12:00 midnight frame roughly.” He “backed [his] rig” into a 

parking spot in the back where it was “kind of secluded.” He noticed 

another truck park beside him. He testified that it drove in “faster in [his] 

opinion than normal.” He also thought it was unusual that the truck parked 

in the opposite direction as his truck. He testified that the truck was also 

blocking another truck to its left. Mr. Uhlir radioed the truck beside him to 

tell him that he was blocking another driver, and the driver stated that he 

was “not going to be [t]here that long.” Mr. Uhlir finished working on his 

logbook, listened to the radio “just for a little bit,” and “climbed in the back 

and tr[ied] to get some rest.” He then heard the engine of the truck beside 
4

him. The engine got “louder and louder.” Mr. Uhlir looked out of his 

window to make sure the truck did not collide with his truck while 

reversing, and the headlights blinded him. Mr. Uhlir testified that he 

“thought the tractor was white,” but that “it could have been a light yellow 

color[,] too. . . .” He testified that the other truck was at the truck stop for 

less than half an hour.

Medical examiner Feng Li performed an autopsy on the victim. The 

victim was 25 years old at the time of her death. She died from a gunshot 

wound on the back right side of her head. The projectile was still in the 

victim‟s head, and based on the location of the bullet, Dr. Li determined 

that the victim was shot from behind and at a downward trajectory. The 

wound was consistent with a “close range gunshot wound” because there 

was soot material around the entrance wound. Dr. Li testified that the 

victim “would have died instantly” from the gunshot. The victim also had 

an abrasion caused by some type of blunt object near the gunshot entrance 

wound. Dr. Li testified that the victim had “multiple blunt force injuries”

and other cuts and abrasions. Dr. Li described the victim‟s other injuries. 

She had bruises and contusions around her left eye, nose, and forehead and 

around her neck and chest. She had superficial cuts on her hands. Dr. Li 

testified that the victim‟s injuries could have been inflicted by a nightstick. 

Dr. Li testified that the victim also had a laceration of the anus, which he 

testified was inflicted at the time of death or after the victim‟s death. The 

victim also had contusions around her genitalia. Dr. Li testified that those 

injuries were caused by blunt force and could have been caused by an erect 

penis. Dr. Li testified that the victim had a “large area of skin defect on the 

right buttock area,” which Dr. Li testified could have been caused by a 

razor. The wound was approximately two inches by two and a half inches 

and was likely caused at the time of death or after death. Dr. Li collected a 

rape kit and DNA swabs from the victim‟s body.

Sgt. Postiglione testified that he viewed the videotape recordings 

obtained from the truck stop and two neighboring businesses and developed 

a suspect vehicle. On July 12, 2007, he and Detective Lee Freeman went to 

the truck stop to “locate some fuel tickets.” As he drove towards the truck 

stop, Sgt. Postiglione observed a yellow tractor trailer similar to the truck 

he had observed in the video drive past the truck stop. Sgt. Postiglione 

followed the truck around the block and into the truck stop, where the truck 

parked in the parking lot. Sgt. Postiglione approached the driver‟s side of 

the truck and “banged on the door.” There was no response, and he noticed 

the curtains had been pulled closed. He “banged on the door a second 
5

time[,]” and Sgt. Postiglione saw the curtain open and saw [the petitioner]

“looking down” at him. Sgt. Postiglione showed his identification and 

asked to speak to [the petitioner], and [the petitioner] exited the truck. [The 

petitioner‟s] shirt was “all the way opened[,]” and he was not wearing 

shoes. Sgt. Postiglione testified that [the petitioner] “was making motions 

like he had just woken up like he had been asleep.” Sgt. Postiglione 

explained that he was looking for a vehicle similar in description to his, and 

they “had a little brief discussion.” Sgt. Postiglione then asked [the 

petitioner] if he would submit DNA samples, and [the petitioner]

consented. [The petitioner] also provided Sgt. Postiglione with his Illinois 

driver‟s license. Detective Freeman took DNA samples from [the 

petitioner].

Sgt. Postiglione noticed what “appeared to be blood drops on the 

driver‟s door, several blood drops.” He asked to search [the petitioner‟s] 

truck, and [the petitioner] consented. Sgt. Postiglione stepped into the truck 

and “sat on the back mattress.” He noticed a bag between the driver‟s seat 

and the bed, and he looked inside. He saw what appeared to be bloody 

clothing. He asked [the petitioner] if he could explain the contents of the 

bag, and [the petitioner] told him that he had cut his leg getting in and out 

of his truck and that he would “wipe the blood and then place it in the bag.”

Sgt. Postiglione asked [the petitioner] to show him the cut. [The petitioner]

pulled up his pants leg, but Sgt. Postiglione testified that he saw no cuts, 

scabs, or scars on [the petitioner‟s] leg. He testified, “[The petitioner]

couldn‟t explain it any further.”

Inside the truck, Sgt. Postiglione also saw a pair of black shoes. He 

picked them up and noticed that the tread pattern was similar to the tread 

pattern of a footprint found near the victim‟s body. He showed Detective 

Freeman the shoes and asked if he thought it looked similar, and Detective 

Freeman agreed that it did. Sgt. Postiglione testified that, prior to getting in 

the truck, he asked [the petitioner] if he had a weapon in the truck, which 

[the petitioner] denied. Sgt. Postiglione testified that he asked [the 

petitioner], “is this the truck [they]‟ve been looking for[,]” and [the 

petitioner] “shrugged his shoulders. . . .” Sgt. Postiglione testified that he 

asked again if it was “the truck [they]‟ve been looking for[,]” and [the 

petitioner] shrugged his shoulders again. Sgt. Postiglione then asked [the 

petitioner] if he was “the person [they‟d] been looking for[,]” and [the 

petitioner] “just looked at [him] and he shrugged his shoulders.” [The 

petitioner] then responded, “[I]f you say so.” Sgt. Postiglione then asked 

[the petitioner] again if there was a weapon inside the truck, and [the 
6

petitioner] admitted that he had a .22 caliber gun inside. Sgt. Postiglione 

testified that he knew that the victim was killed with a .22 caliber gun. Sgt. 

Postiglione placed [the petitioner] under arrest, and [the petitioner] was 

taken to General Hospital to be examined and then taken to police 

headquarters. At the headquarters, Sgt. Postiglione advised [the petitioner]

of his Miranda rights, and [the petitioner] agreed to give a statement.

In a videotaped statement, [the petitioner] is seated across the table 

from Sgt. Postiglione and Detective Freeman in a small interview room. 

Sgt. Postiglione read [the petitioner‟s] rights to him, and [the petitioner]

answered affirmatively that he understood his rights. [The petitioner] then 

stated that he had stopped at the Pilot truck stop and “fueled up” when 

David Powell and Richie Keim approached him. [The petitioner] stated 

that “they walked up” and asked, “Where‟re you going now?” [The 

petitioner] told the men that it was “none of [their] business,” and the men 

stated that it was “[their] business now.” [The petitioner] stated that David 

rode with him in his truck to the TA truck stop, and Richie followed in 

another vehicle. [The petitioner] thought there was a third person in the 

vehicle. [The petitioner] went inside the TA to get something to eat. When 

he returned to his truck, the victim “was sprawled out in the back.” The 

men told [the petitioner], “It‟s your problem, not ours,” and left. [The 

petitioner] then “proceeded to clean the mess up.” [The petitioner] stated 

that the victim was not wearing any clothes, and there were “bags over her 

head.” He stated that “there was blood everywhere.” [The petitioner] told 

detectives that he had a .22 caliber rifle in his truck and that he believed the 

victim was shot with his rifle. He stated that the men “meet [him] 

everywhere.” He did not know how the men knew where he was. He 

“dumped her body” behind the truck trailers at the truck stop. He stated 

that he displayed her body “in plain view.” He stated that the men “were 

laughing about” having had sex with the victim. When Sgt. Postiglione 

asked [the petitioner] if the victim had been cut, [the petitioner] stated that 

the men had told him that “she had a good tattoo.” Sgt. Postiglione had not 

mentioned that the victim had a tattoo. [The petitioner‟s] demeanor while 

giving the statement appeared calm.

Sgt. Postiglione subsequently located and interviewed Mr. Keim, 

Mr. Powell, and Mr. Sanders and obtained their fingerprints and DNA 

samples. Sgt. Postiglione testified “[t]here was no[t]--one shred of

evidence suggesting any of these individuals were involved.”
7

Detective Freeman testified that he reviewed the video recordings 

obtained from the truck stop and neighboring businesses and developed a 

suspect vehicle. That truck drove to the back area of the truck stop and 

parked during the relevant time frame. The truck left “within a certain 

amount of time without doing anything else, going to the gas pumps or 

anything else.” Detective Freeman also corroborated Sgt. Postiglione‟s 

testimony about the detectives‟ initial encounter with [the petitioner].

Lori Young, who is Richie Keim‟s mother, testified that Mr. Keim 

has Asperger‟s disease and schizophrenia. She testified that Mr. Keim is 

“wholly disabled” and cannot testify, enter into legal agreements, or drive a 

vehicle. In June, 2007, Mr. Keim was living with Ms. Young in Franklin, 

Kentucky. She testified that he was not able to leave without her 

supervision. Ms. Young testified that it was not possible that Mr. Keim left 

Kentucky and went to Tennessee without her knowledge. When officers 

investigating the case came to talk to her, she allowed them to take a 

statement and DNA from Mr. Keim.

Ms. Young testified that she met [the petitioner] in 2002 when her 

truck broke down in Maryland, and she “received a ride from a truck driver 

or two” until she got to her home in Arizona. She testified that she rode in 

[the petitioner‟s] truck for “[t]wo, maybe three” days. [The petitioner]

offered to rent a house to Ms. Young, and she lived in that house for “[t]wo 

and a half to three months” before she moved out. She saw [the petitioner]

“[m]aybe once at the bowling alley but [she] didn‟t speak to him[,]” and 

that was the last time she saw [the petitioner].

Terry Wayne Sanders, II, testified that he lived in Elwood, Indiana. 

He testified that he had spoken to [the petitioner] on two separate occasions 

in 2001. The first time he spoke to [the petitioner] was after Mr. Sanders 

and some friends had “vandalized his house” by wrapping toilet paper and 

plastic wrap around [the petitioner‟s] trees and front porch. Mr. Sanders 

was 15 years old at the time. [The petitioner] confronted Mr. Sanders. Mr. 

Sanders later dated [the petitioner‟s] niece and talked to [the petitioner] one 

other time in the fall of 2001. Mr. Sanders was in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, on June 25, 2007, because his mother had been involved in a car 

accident. Mr. Sanders‟ niece and grandmother were killed in the accident. 

Mr. Sanders arrived in Albuquerque on June 22, 2007, and returned to 

Indiana on July 2, 2007.
8

Danny Davis was [the petitioner‟s] employer through his small 

trucking firm at the time of [the petitioner‟s] arrest. Mr. Davis testified that 

[the petitioner] had worked for him for approximately one year at the time 

of [the petitioner‟s] arrest. Mr. Davis recalled a conversation between [the 

petitioner], [the petitioner‟s] wife, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Davis‟s wife, in 

which Mr. Davis asked [the petitioner] “why he liked these big truck stops.

. . .” Mr. Davis stated that “them lot lizards will be crawling all over your 

vehicle in the big truck stops.” Mr. Davis testified that “lot lizards” is a 

slang term for prostitutes. [The petitioner‟s] wife “smacked him on the 

shoulder and said, „[Y]ou better not be messing with any lot lizard.‟” [The 

petitioner] turned to Mr. Davis and said, “I just shoot them.” Mr. Davis 

“took it, you know, as a joke . . . and kind of laughed it off. . . .” Mr. Davis 

testified that company policy and the law prohibited drivers from having 

weapons inside their trucks. Mr. Davis testified that [the petitioner‟s] fuel 

receipts showed that [the petitioner] purchased fuel at a Pilot station in 

Nashville at 12:33 p.m. on June 25, 2007.

After being recalled to the witness stand, Sgt. Postiglione testified 

that he interviewed Lucas McLaughlin, a fellow inmate of [the petitioner]. 

McLaughlin agreed to wear a wire and record his conversations with [the 

petitioner]. Sgt. Postiglione instructed McLaughlin not to speak to [the 

petitioner] about the homicide, but only the “solicitation case.”

Two recorded conversations between McLaughlin and [the 

petitioner] on May 2, 2008, and May 16, 2008, were played for the jury. In 

the first recording, [the petitioner] told McLaughlin that he needed 

someone to be an alibi witness and testify that [the petitioner] refused 

consent for Sgt. Pos[tig]lione to search his truck. McLaughlin asked [the 

petitioner] for Lori Young‟s address. [The petitioner] told McLaughlin, “I 

would owe you dramatically[,]” and McLaughlin said, “Right, well my 

thing is, Lori goes away, you know[,]” to which [the petitioner] replied, 

“[Y]eah.” [The petitioner] and McLaughlin discussed where to find Ms. 

Young, and McLaughlin said, “I‟ll blow the whole f[ ]ing house up. It‟s a 

gas leak.” [The petitioner] replied, “[w]hatever. You know that‟s your, 

that‟s your thing.” McLaughlin stated that after [the petitioner‟s] trial, they 

could “settle up.” McLaughlin suggested that [the petitioner] work for his 

uncle‟s trucking company and pay McLaughlin ten percent of his earnings, 

and [the petitioner] agreed.

In the May 16, 2008, conversation between [the petitioner] and 

McLaughlin, McLaughlin asked [the petitioner] who “David” was and 
9

stated, “[I]f I‟m gonna pop his ass, I need to know why.” [The petitioner]

told McLaughlin that he was a friend of Richie and Lori. McLaughlin told 

[the petitioner], “I thought about it, and I‟m just gonna do it how I‟m gonna 

do it. It‟s a gas leak in the trailer, and everybody blows up. I‟m happy. 

You‟re happy.” McLaughlin stated that he wanted to know “who the David 

guy was and if, if he was that big of a threat [because] one thing I don‟t like 

doing is innocent bystanders.” McLaughlin then asked, “[w]hat‟s one more 

explosion?” and [the petitioner] replied, “Yep.” McLaughlin asked [the 

petitioner] if they were “still on” and whether [the petitioner] would “pay 

[him] back.” [The petitioner] again replied, “Yep.” McLaughlin said, “I‟m 

thinking like roughly fifteen, fifteen thousand. And that‟s for the whole 

thing, everybody. And you go about your merry day. No witnesses show 

up for you.” McLaughlin told [the petitioner] that he would not contact 

him, and [the petitioner] said, “[n]o connections . . . . [j]ust the number to 

your uncle‟s trucking company.” McLaughlin told [the petitioner], “I ain‟t

gonna do this, then you gonna wind up having remorse, or a guilty 

conscience or whatever.” [The petitioner] told McLaughlin to “do [his] 

thing” and stated, “I don‟t want to know.” [The petitioner] stated, “[t]he 

less I know, the better it is for you.”

McLaughlin told [the petitioner], “if I blow up the trailer, and take 

out Lori and her son, I don't know his name,” and [the petitioner] stated, 

“Richie.” McLaughlin then asked, “does David live there too?” [The 

petitioner] answered “[n]ope” and told McLaughlin where David lived with 

his daughter. McLaughlin asked, “[d]oes she need to go?” and [the 

petitioner] replied, “[n]ot really, no.” McLaughlin asked [the petitioner] if 

David, Lori, and Richie were “the only three that can hurt [the petitioner],”

and [the petitioner] replied, “[y]ep.” The following exchange then 

occurred:

McLaughlin: Fifteen grand, I kill all three. After that, you 

don‟t know me until you come out, then you just call that 

phone number, talk to my uncle. My uncle will get you in 

touch with me. But other than that, we don‟t know each 

other.

[The petitioner]: Alright.

McLaughlin: Is that a deal?

[The petitioner]: Yeah.
10

TBI Agent Steve Scott was qualified by the trial court as an expert in 

forensic firearms testing and ammunition testing. Agent Scott identified 

the rifle that was found inside [the petitioner‟s] truck as a .22 caliber rifle. 

A .22 caliber cartridge was found in the top drawer of a storage 

compartment behind the driver‟s seat in [the petitioner‟s] truck. Another 

.22 caliber cartridge case was found on the floor behind the passenger seat 

in the truck. A third shell casing was collected when the truck was 

processed for evidence, and a fourth shell casing was found on the floor of 

the passenger side of the truck.

Agent Scott also identified a nightstick that was found in a wooden 

drawer under the bed in [the petitioner‟s] truck. He identified two pairs of 

shoes and two sets of handcuffs that were found in the truck. Black 

electrical tape was found in an outer storage compartment on the outside of 

the truck on the passenger side. A second roll of electrical tape was in a 

storage compartment above the dashboard. A yellow notepad found in the 

truck had notes that read, “go back TA” and “4-sex okay.” A logbook 

indicated that [the petitioner] was in Nashville on the afternoon of June 25, 

2007. A box of cling wrap was found near the lower bunk in the sleeper 

portion of the truck.

Agent Scott examined a bullet recovered by the medical examiner 

from the victim‟s head and compared it to [the petitioner‟s] rifle. He 

concluded that the bullet was fired from [the petitioner‟s] rifle. Agent Scott 

also concluded that three of the four cartridge casings found inside [the 

petitioner‟s] truck were fired from [the petitioner‟s] rifle. The fourth casing 

did not have enough individual characteristics for Agent Scott to 

conclusively identify it, but he could not exclude the casing from having 

been fired by the rifle. Agent Scott observed what appeared to be “blood 

staining in some of the cracks and crevices” of [the petitioner‟s] rifle, but 

he did not test the stains to determine whether they were blood. He took 

swabs of the stains.

TBI Agent Linda Littlejohn was qualified by the trial court as an 

expert in the field of forensic testing of shoes and shoe prints. She testified 

that she compared a pair of [the petitioner‟s] shoes with casts of two 

different shoe prints made at the crime scene. With respect to the cast of 

one of the shoe prints at the crime scene, [the petitioner‟s] shoes “were 

consistent with size, shape and tread design so therefore they could have 
11

made that cast or another shoe just like it could have made that 

impression.”

TBI Agent Kendra Fleenor was qualified by the trial court as an 

expert in the field of latent print comparison. She processed [the 

petitioner‟s] truck and lifted latent fingerprints. She compared the 

fingerprints from the truck with those of Terry Sanders, David Powell, 

Richard Keim, the victim, and [the petitioner]. None of the victim‟s prints 

were in [the petitioner‟s] truck. The prints in the truck did not match Mr. 

Keim‟s, Mr. Powell‟s, or Mr. Sanders‟ prints. 25 of the prints taken from 

the truck matched [the petitioner‟s] prints. [The petitioner‟s] prints were 

found on a garbage bag and the .22 caliber rifle.

Agent Patrick Ihrie, of the DNA and serology unit, testified that 

semen was present in the victim‟s mouth, anus, and vagina, but the semen 

did not match [the petitioner‟s] DNA profile. The semen also did not 

match the DNA profiles of Lee Meeks, Wayman “Hollywood” Henderson, 

or the victim‟s other previous boyfriends. The semen also did not match 

the DNA profiles of Richie Keim, David Powell, or Terry Sanders. Agent 

Ihrie was unable to obtain a DNA profile from semen found on the victim‟s 

thigh.

Agent Ihrie testified that he removed and processed several items 

from [the petitioner‟s] truck. A utility knife with a removable razor blade 

and a “leather pouch to go with it” were recovered from the driver‟s side 

storage area. A second knife was found in “drawer number 3.” “Sex toys” 

were also found in “drawer number 3.” Agent Ihrie conducted DNA 

analysis from different areas of the sex toys. The DNA on the “tan device”

that had what looked to be a “blood pressure inflating bulb on one end” was 

a mixture of male and female genetic material and did not match any 

samples from the known individuals. The DNA profile from the “red 

device” was also a mixture of male and female genetic material, and the 

“major contributor” was consistent with [the petitioner].

Agent Ihrie identified a knife found in the center console of [the 

petitioner‟s] truck. He testified that the knife was tested, and it was 

determined that blood was present on the blade edge. Agent Ihrie obtained 

a DNA sample, but the profile was “very small,” and it indicated only that 

the DNA came from a female. Agent Ihrie also identified [the petitioner‟s]

DNA on the handle of the knife.
12

Two sets of metal handcuffs were processed for DNA, and the test 

indicated the presence of human DNA, but the sample contained a small 

amount of DNA, and a profile was not obtained. A penis pump was found 

in the lower bunk area of [the petitioner‟s] truck. Plastic wrap was found in 

the cubby area behind the driver‟s seat and in the back floorboard.

Agent Ihrie tested and confirmed that several “reddish brown stains”

in [the petitioner‟s] truck were blood. Blood found on the door jamb area 

of the truck matched the victim‟s DNA profile. Two of the 13 genetic loci 

were inconclusive. However, the report concluded that the chance that the 

blood on the door jamb belonged to a person other than the victim was only 

one out of 23 trillion. A blood sample taken from inside the driver‟s side of 

the truck also matched the victim‟s DNA profile. Four genetic markers 

were inconclusive, but only one in 85 billion Caucasian people would have 

the same profile. Another blood sample was taken from the back of the 

driver‟s seat and tested. 13 out of 13 loci matched the victim‟s DNA 

profile, and the probability of an unrelated individual having the same 

profile was one out of 15 quadrillion people.

Agent Ihrie also examined reddish brown stains on [the petitioner‟s]

rifle. A blood stain on the “rear sight” matched the victim‟s DNA profile. 

Blood from the barrel where the “wooden part of the forearm and the barrel 

meet” also matched the victim‟s DNA profile, and Agent Ihrie testified 

there was a one in 1.4 trillion chance that it was someone other than the 

victim‟s DNA. Blood from “[n]ear the end of the barrel” also matched the 

victim‟s profile.

For the defense, TBI Agent Sandra Poltorak, an expert in the field of 

tire track comparison, testified that [the petitioner‟s] tire tracks did not 

match any of the tire tracks found at the scene where the victim‟s body was 

found. She also testified that the “stance measurement” between the tire 

tracks found at the scene was inconsistent with the “stance,” or distance 

between the two front tires, of [the petitioner‟s] truck.

State v. Bruce D. Mendenhall, No. M2010-02080-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 430329, at *5-

13 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 4, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 12, 2013).

We will review the complaints of the petitioner, as best we understand them.
13

ANALYSIS

Initially, we note that the petitioner‟s appellate brief does not include any

references to the thirteen volumes of the trial transcript or the transcript of the evidentiary 

hearing on his petition. Rather, it sets out as the “Statement of Facts” only claims 

advanced by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing but without page references to the 

transcripts. We found the petitioner‟s testimony difficult to follow and, in some cases, to 

understand exactly what his complaint was. While making our determinations regarding

this appeal, we have reviewed the evidentiary hearing transcript but decline to search

through the multi-volume trial transcript to locate testimony, if any, relevant to this 

appeal.

The post-conviction petitioner bears the burden of proving his allegations by clear 

and convincing evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(f). When an evidentiary 

hearing is held in the post-conviction setting, the findings of fact made by the court are 

conclusive on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against them. See Tidwell v. 

State, 922 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tenn. 1996). Where appellate review involves purely 

factual issues, the appellate court should not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. See

Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997). However, our review of a postconviction court‟s application of the law to the facts of the case is de novo, with no 

presumption of correctness. See Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95, 96 (Tenn. 1998). The 

issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, which presents mixed questions of fact and law, 

is reviewed de novo, with a presumption of correctness given only to the post-conviction 

court‟s findings of fact. See Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001); Burns v. 

State, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999).

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner has the 

burden to show both that trial counsel‟s performance was deficient and that counsel‟s 

deficient performance prejudiced the outcome of the proceeding. Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see State v. Taylor, 968 S.W.2d 900, 905 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. 1997) (noting that same standard for determining ineffective assistance of 

counsel that is applied in federal cases also applies in Tennessee). The Strickland

standard is a two-prong test:

First, the defendant must show that counsel‟s performance was deficient. 

This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was 

not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth 

Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient 

performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel‟s 

errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial 

whose result is reliable.
14

466 U.S. at 687.

The deficient performance prong of the test is satisfied by showing that “counsel‟s 

acts or omissions were so serious as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness 

under prevailing professional norms.” Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996) 

(citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688; Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975)). 

The prejudice prong of the test is satisfied by showing a reasonable probability, i.e., a 

“probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome,” that “but for counsel‟s 

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.

Courts need not approach the Strickland test in a specific order or even “address 

both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” 

466 U.S. at 697; see also Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (stating that “failure to prove either 

deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective 

assistance claim”).

Testifying at the evidentiary hearing were the petitioner and one of his trial 

counsel. Counsel said he had been licensed since 2002 and had handled “more than a 

thousand” criminal cases, including those charging first degree murder.

The petitioner complained first that trial counsel had a time-dated and stamped 

photograph showing that thirteen minutes before the petitioner was interviewed by Metro 

Nashville police officers in civilian clothes, he was dressed in an orange jumpsuit and 

leaving a “police lab” building. He did not ask trial counsel that the photograph be 

entered into evidence and shown to the jury but “figured” counsel would do so. He did 

not produce this photograph at the hearing or explain why it was of significance, other 

than to say he “would have liked for [the photograph] to have been shown.” As to this 

claim, counsel testified he recalled some sort of “inconsistency” in the photograph, but he 

saw no way such a claim would have assisted in the motion to suppress the petitioner‟s 

later statement to police officers. The petitioner maintained that he was not the person 

being interviewed during a videotaped interview, although counsel testified he believed 

that it was the petitioner who was shown in the video giving a statement to officers. 

Counsel consulted an expert in this regard but was unable to develop proof that the 

person in the video was not the petitioner. 

The petitioner next asserted that, after reading the opinion of this court on direct 

appeal, he realized, as best we can understand, that trial counsel should have proved 

when “that curtain went closed.” He provided no explanation as to how this could have 

been proven, how it was relevant, or if, in fact, such additional proof even was available. 
15

Counsel was not questioned regarding this. The post-conviction court did not make a 

specific finding as to this claim, which we, likely as did the trial court, simply do not 

understand.

Regarding jury selection, the petitioner complained that trial counsel did not “get 

rid of a lot [of prospective jurors] I thought should have went.” As to this claim, the postconviction court accredited trial counsel‟s testimony that he did not recall the petitioner‟s

asking for jurors to be stricken and that such determinations were strategic choices based 

upon counsel‟s experience. We agree with the post-conviction court that the petitioner 

failed to show that he was prejudiced by the fact that these jurors were not stricken from 

the jury.

Further, the petitioner said that trial counsel “could have showed evidence.” He 

explained that when he arrived in Wilson County, apparently still in custody, he obtained 

a list of seven possible suspects for, as we understand, the homicide which was the basis 

for the conviction he now questions. He said he had sent the list to his children but did 

not have a copy for the court at the evidentiary hearing. As best we can understand, he 

did not give a copy to trial counsel.

The petitioner said that he wanted more DNA testing done, apparently on 

additional samples taken from the victim‟s body, but had “no idea” whether this had been 

done. As to this claim, the post-conviction court noted that expert testimony at the trial 

showed that the DNA samples taken from the victim could not be matched to any person 

in the DNA database. Further, the petitioner failed to show how any further testing 

would have benefitted his defense. Thus, as did the post-conviction court, we conclude 

that the petitioner failed to show that counsel was ineffective or that the petitioner was 

prejudiced thereby. 

As to the claim of insufficient meetings with the petitioner, counsel said that he 

met with him more than any other client he had ever represented. On cross-examination, 

counsel said that, at any time, two or three attorneys were working on the petitioner‟s

case. As to this claim, the post-conviction court concluded that the petitioner failed to 

show that trial counsel had been ineffective or that he had been prejudiced thereby. The 

record supports this determination.

Concluding his testimony, the petitioner said exculpatory evidence existed which 

would have helped him, including “[w]hose tire tracks were there,” “[w]hose other shoe 

was that imprinted out there,” and “whose gray hairs w[ere] found on her?” While the 

petitioner presupposes that counsel was ineffective for failing to identify the donor of the 

hairs found on the victim or to match tire tracks found at the scene, he has not explained 

how his counsel could have performed this function. Rather, a DNA expert, testifying for 
16

the State, said he was unable to match the DNA to any in the database. Accordingly, we 

agree with the post-conviction court that, as to this claim, the petitioner also has failed to 

show that trial counsel was ineffective or that the petitioner was prejudiced thereby.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing authorities and reasoning, the judgment of the postconviction court is affirmed.

_________________________________ 

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE