### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE
AT JACKSON

Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Sep te m be r 7, 2 01 1

TI MOTH Y GARVIN ODO M v. ST ATE OF TE NNESSEE

A p p e a l f r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r H a r d e m a n C o u n t y
N o

. 0 7

- 0 1

- 0 4 9 4 J

. W e b e r M c C r a w , J u d g e

N o

. W 2 0 1 1

- 0 0 4 4 8

- C C A

- R 3

- P C

- F i l e d N o v e m b e r 2 1
, 2 0 1 1

T h e p etitio n er, T im o th y G arv in O d o m , ap p eals th e d en ial o f h is p etitio n f o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief f ro m h is co n v ictio n f

o r rap e o f a ch ild

. O n ap p eal, h e arg u es th at th e trial co u rt erred
in d en y in g h is p e t i t i o n b ecau se h e receiv ed th e in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel. A f ter

rev iew , w e af

f irm th e d en ial o f

th e p etitio n

.

T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; J u d g m e n t o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t A f f i r m e d

A LA N E

. G LE N N
, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

, i n w h i c h T H O M A S T

. W O O D A LL a n d

J E F F R E Y S

. B IV IN S

, J J

. , j o i n e d

.

C l i f f o r d K

. M c G o w n , J r

. , W a v e r l y , T e n n e s s e e ( o n a p p e a l ) ; G a r y F

. A n t r i c a n , D i s t r i c t P u b l i c
D e f e n d e r ; a n d S h a n a J o h n s o n , A s s i s t a n t P u b l i c D e f e n d e r ( a t t r i a l a n d o f c o u n s e l o n a p p e a l )

, f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t

, T i m o t h y G a r v i n O d o m

.

R o b e r t E

. C o o p e r , J r

. , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r ; S o p h i a S

. L e e , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; D

. M i c h a e l D u n a v a n t

, D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; a n d J o e L

. V a n D y k e , A s s i s t a n t

D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, f o r t h e a p p e l l e e , S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e

.

O P I N I O N

F A C T S

T h e p etitio n er w as co n v icted o f rap e o f a ch ild b y a H ard em an C o u n ty C ircu it C o u rt j u ry an d w as sen ten ced to eig h teen y ears in th e D ep artm en t o f C o rrectio n

. O n d irect ap p eal,
th is co u rt af

f irm ed h is co n v ictio n an d sen ten ce, an d th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt d en ied
h is ap p licatio n f

o r p erm issio n to ap p eal. S ee S tate v

. T im o th y G arv in O d o m , N o

. W2 0 0 8

- 0 0 7 9 5 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 9 WL 2 9 9 8 9 2 3 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. S ep t. 2 1

, 2 0 0 9 ), p erm

. to ap p eal
d en ied (T en n

. M ar. 1 5 , 2 0 1 0 ). T h e u n d erly in g f acts o f th e case w ere recited b y th is co u rto n d irect ap p eal as f o llo w s:

In v estig ato r M ik e K en n am o re, w ith th e H ard em an C o u n ty S h erif f ’s

D ep artm en t, testif

ied th at h e w as co n tacted b y th e D ep artm en t o f C h ild ren ’s
S erv ices o n A p ril 2 6

, 2 0 0 7

, co n cern in g a co m p lain t m ad e b y th e v ictim

, E .D

.,

w h o w as elev en y ears o ld

. (T h e m in o r v ict i m w ill b e ref erred to b y h er in itials). E .D

. w as in terv iew ed at th e C arl P erk in s C en ter, a n d I n v e stig ato r K en n am o re w atc h e d th e in terv iew in a sep arate ro o m v ia a clo sed circu it
telev isio n

. In v estig ato r K en n am o re said th at th e v ictim ran “th ro u g h a ran g e

o f em o tio n s” d u rin g t h e in terv iew

. In itially

, E .D

. w as “clo sed u p ,” lo o k in g d o w n , a n d th en sh e b eg an to o p en u p as th e in terv iew er co n tin u ed to tal k

. In v estig ato r K en n am o re said th at E .D

. at th at p o in t b ecam e u p s e t a n d w as

em b arrassed

. D u rin g th e in terv iew

, th e v ic t i m ev en tu ally said th at [ th e

p e t i t i o n e r ] h ad p en etrated h er v ag in ally w ith h is p en is. A w arran t f o r [ th e

p etitio n er] ’s arrest w as issu ed

, an d it w as d isco v ered th at [ th e p etitio n er] h ad
lef t H ard em an C o u n ty

.

In v estig ato r K en n am o re receiv ed in f o rm atio n th at [ th e p etitio n er] w as resid in g in F o rrest, M ississip p i. O n Ju n e 2 0

, 2 0 0 7

, [ th e p etitio n er] w as

arr e s t e d in M ississip p i an d tran sp o rted b ack to T en n essee. In v estig ato r K en n am o re stated th at h e in terv iew ed [ th e p etitio n er] at the Ha r dem an C o u n ty
S h erif f ’s D ep artm en t o n Ju n e 2 1

, 2 0 0 7

. [ T h e p etitio n er] w as read h is M iran d a rig h ts, in d icated h e u n d ersto o d h i s r ig h t n o t to co n tin u e w ith th e in terv iew

,

an d ex ecu ted a w ritten w aiv er o f th o se rig h ts. In v estig ato r K en n am o re said
th at h e an d [ th e p etitio n er] co n v ersed f o r a w h i l e, an d th en [ th e p etitio n er]

g av e a w ritten statem en t co n cern in g E .D .’s alleg atio n s. T h e statem en t w as in tro d u ced as an ex h ib it at trial a n d r e a d t o th e j u ry

. In h is statem en t, [ th e

p etitio n er] ack n o w led g ed th at h e k n ew th e v ictim an d th at h e h ad h ad sex u al

co n tact w ith h er. In h is statem en t, [ t h e p e t i t io n er] said th at th e v ictim h ad
b een f lirtin g w ith th e b o y s in th e n eig h b o rh o o d . [ T h e p etitio n er] ex p lain ed :

I s a i d I w as g o in g to tell o n h er to h er m o th er, an d sh e said

, “N o , d o n ’t d o th at.” I th in k I said y es b ecau s e [ t h e v i c tim ’s

m o th er] n eed s to k n o w h o w sh e h ad b een co n d u ctin g h erself

w ith th em b o y s an d all. S h e k in d o f g o t w h in ey , say in g “d o n ’t
tell.” I w as p retty

w ell w asted th at d ay . S h e sh o v ed m e d o w n

o n th e b ed

. If I rem em

b er co rrectly

, sh e w as u n b u tto n in g h er

p an ts. S h e p u lled m y sh o rts d o w n

- w h e n I say sh o rts, I m ean b o x ers. S h e g o t o n to p o f m e an d sh e started ru b b in g , b u m p in g , g rin d in g o r w h atev er y o u w an t to call it. I f in ally p u sh ed h er

-2-o f f o f m e. I s t o o d u p an d p u t m y sh o rts o n

. I to ld m y self

, “I

n eed to g et o u t o f

th is m ess,” an d I lef

t.

Wh en ask ed w h eth er h is p en is h ad p en etrated th e v ictim ’s v ag in a, [ th e

p etitio n er] resp o n d ed

, “It f e l t r eal w arm b u t it n ev er d id g o in .” [ T h e

p etitio n er] said th at h e h ad d ru n k o n e an d o n e-h alf f o rty -o u n ce b o ttles o f b eer. [ T h e p etitio n er] stated th at th e in cid en t o ccu rred in h is b ed ro o m , an d h e said
th at th e v ictim

w as tw elv e y ears o ld

.

On c r os s

- e xa m i na t i on, I nvestig ato r K en n am o r e a c knowl e dge d t ha t [t he

p etitio n er] co o p erated w ith th e in v estig atio n

. In v estig ato r K en n am o re stated
th at th e v i c t i m d id n o t g iv e a sp ecif ic d ate in M arch as to w h en th e in cid en t

o ccu rred

, an d h e ack n o w led g e[ d ] th at th e o f f en se co u ld h av e b een co m m itted
in late F eb ru ary

. In v estig a to r K en n am o re ack n o w led g ed th at E .D

. w as n o t

ex am in ed b y a p h y sician

, b u t h e b eliev ed th at a m ed ical ex am in atio n w o u ld

n o t h av e rev ealed an y

ev id en ce p ertin en t to th e case.

E .D

. testif

ied th at sh e liv ed in a th ree b ed ro o m h o u se w ith h er m o th er, G en ev a D en n ey , an d th ree b ro th ers, N ath an , Jo h n -Jo h n , an d E ric. E .D

. said
th at [ th e p etitio n er] also liv ed w ith th e f am ily at th e tim e o f th e o f f en se. E .D

. stated th at E ric an d Jo h n -Jo h n sh ared a b ed ro o m , N ath an slep t o n th e co u ch

,
s h e s h a r ed a ro o m w ith h er m o th er, an d [ th e p etitio n er] slep t in th e th ir d
b ed ro o m

. O n th e n ig h t o f th e o f f en se, E .D

., o n e o f h e r b ro th ers, an d [ th e

p etitio n er] w ere w atc h in g a m o v ie in [ th e p etitio n er] ’s b ed ro o m f ro m [ th e

p etitio n er] ’s b ed

. E .D

. said sh e w as d ressed in j ean s an d a sh irt, an d [ th e

p etitio n er] w as w earin g b o x er sh o rts. A t so m e p o in t, E .D .’s b ro th er lef t [ th e

p etitio n er] ’s b ed ro o m

. E .D

. stated th at sh e f ell asleep d u rin g th e m o v ie. E .D

. said th at [ th e p etitio n er] th en rem o v ed h er clo th es an d p en etrated h er in h er “p riv ate p ar t ” w ith h is “p riv ate p art.” E .D

. said th at th e in cid en t lasted
b etw een ten an d tw en ty m in u tes. [ T h e p etitio n er] to ld E .D

., “D o n ’t tell y o u r

m am a o r y o u ’re n o t g o in g to h av e n o w h ere else to liv e.” E .D

. ack n o w led g ed
th at [ th e p etitio n er] p aid so m e o f th e f am ily ’s b ills.

E .D

. said th at sh e to ld h er m o th er ab o u t th e in cid en t so m e tim e later.

M s. D en n ey co n f

ro n ted [ th e p etitio n er] an d to ld h im th at sh e w as g o in g to call
th e sh erif f ’s d ep artm en t, an d [ th e p etitio n er] “ran o u t th e d o o r.” E .D

. stated
th at sh e w as elev en y ears o ld at th e tim e o f th e o f f en se.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , E .D

. said th at h er b ro th ers ask ed h er m o th er if [ th e p etitio n er] co u ld liv e w ith th em , an d M s. D en n ey ag reed

. E .D

. stated th at

-3-h er m o th er f elt so rry f o r [ th e p etitio n er] b ecau se h e h ad can cer. E .D

. said th at th e in cid en t o ccu rred at ap p ro x im ately 1 0 :0 0 p .m

. o n a w eek d ay n ig h t. E .D .’s
b ro th er, N ath an , w as su p p o sed to stay w ith E .D

. w h ile h er mo t h e r w e n t to

p ick u p h er o th e r b ro th ers f ro m w o rk

, b u t N ath an w en t o v er to h is u n cle’s
h o u se an d lef

t E .D . alo n e w ith [ th e p etitio n er]

.

E .D

. said th at af

ter th e in cid en t, [ th e p etitio n er] ’s so n a n d
d au g h ter-in -law

, K ev in an d A lish a O d o m , cam e to liv e w ith th em

. E .D

. to ld

M s. O d o m ab o u t th e in cid en t af ter [ th e p etitio n er] co m

p lain ed to M s. D en n ey ab o u t E .D .’s f

ailu re to d o h er h o m ew o rk

. M s. O d o m to ld M s

. D en n ey th at
E .D . h ad so m eth in g to tell h er, an d E .D . th en to ld M s. D en n ey

.

M s. D en n ey testif

ied th at sh e m et [ th e p etitio n er] w h ile sh e w as liv in g

w ith h er m o th er in B y

h al i a , M i s sissip p i. M s. D en n ey ’s so n s, Jo h n an d

N ath an , b ecam e f

rien d s w ith [ th e p etitio n er] w h o liv ed tw o d o o rs d o w n f ro m

t h e D e n n ey s. M s. D en n ey said th at [ th e p etitio n er] w as d iv o rced an d h a d

can cer at th e tim e. Wh en M s. D en n ey d ecid ed to m o v e to T en n essee, h er so n s ask ed h er if [ th e p etitio n er] co u ld co m e w ith th em

. M s. D en n ey said th at sh e d id n o t h av e a j o b at th e tim e, an d [ th e p etitio n er] ’s d i s a b ility ch eck w o u ld

co v er th e f

am ily ’s b ills, so sh e ag reed

. M s. D en n ey said th at sh e n ev er h ad a

ro m an tic relatio n sh ip w ith [ th e p etitio n er]

.

M s. D en n ey said th at K ev i n a n d A lish a O d o m arriv ed at th e h o u se. M s. D en n ey w as in h er b ed ro o m w h en th ey ru sh ed in an d to ld h er to listen to

w h at E .D

. h ad to say

. M s. D en n ey im m ed iately co n f ro n ted [ th e p etitio n er]
ab o u t th e in cid en t. [ T h e p etitio n er] resp o n d ed

, “G e n e v a , d o y o u th in k I

w o u ld d o so m eth in g lik e th at? ” M s. D e n n e y t o ld [ th e p etitio n er] sh e w as

g o in g to call 9 1 1 an d th e sh erif f ’s d ep artm en t. [ T h e p etitio n er] ran o u t o f th e h o u s e , j u m

p ed in to h is tru ck

, an d lef t. M s. D en n ey said th at K ev in O d o m
actu ally rep o rted th e in cid en t to th e sh erif f ’s d ep artm en t. M s

. D en n ey

ex p lain ed th at h er o ld est d au g h ter “w as d o n e th e sam e w ay b y a f o rm er b o y f rien d ’s f rien d .” M s. D en n ey

stated :

I w en t all th e w ay , an d h is d ad d y w as th e S h erif f

. H e ran

. T h ey

n ev er p ro secu ted o r n o th in g

. T h ey j u st let it g o

. I t j u st w en t th ro u g h th e s y s tem

, an d I f ig u red it w o u ld d o th e sam e w ith [ E .D .] so I d id n ’t p u sh

.

T h e S tate rested its case-in -ch ief

, an d [ th e p etitio n er] p u t o n h i s

-4-d ef

en se. [ T h e p etitio n er] testif ied th at h e w a s f

if ty -tw o y ears o ld

, th at h is

can cer w as in rem issio n , an d h e su f f ered f ro m d ep ressio n

. [ T h e p etitio n er]
said th at h e h ad b een receiv in g so cial secu rity b en ef its f o r ap p ro x im ately f

iv e

y ears b ecau se h e w as u n ab le to w o rk

. [ T h e p etitio n er] stated t h a t h e p aid

so m e o f M s. D en n ey ’s b ills in ex ch an g e f o r ro o m an d b o ard

. [ T h e p etitio n er]

co n sid ered M s. D en n ey a clo se f rien d

. [ T h e p etitio n er] d escrib ed h is
relatio n sh ip w ith h is so n as “p o o r” b ecau se K ev in O d o m h ad a d ru g p ro b lem

. [ T h e p etitio n er] stated th at h e tried to b e lik e a g ran d f ath er to M s. D en n ey ’s
ch ild ren . [ T h e p etitio n er] said , “I j u st lo v e th em to d eath

, y o u k n o w .” [ T h e

p etitio n er] said th at h is h eart w as b ro k en o v er E .D .’s alleg atio n s, b u t h e “still care[ d ] f o r th em v ery d eep ly .”

[ T h e p etitio n er] said th at in ad d itio n to M s

. D e n n ey an d h er f o u r ch ild ren , K ev in an d A lish a O d o m an d th eir b ab y , an d [ th e p etitio n er] ’s f o u r

g ran d ch ild ren also liv ed in th e h o u se. [ T h e p etiti o n e r ] stated th e in cid en t

o ccu rred o n a S u n d ay b etw een ap p ro x im ately 5 :0 0 p .m

. an d 5 :3 0 p .m

. an d th at

ev ery b o d y w as at h o m e. [ T h e p etitio n er] said th at E .D . w as m ad at h im th at
S u n d ay b ecau se h e h ad ad m o n ish ed h er w h en E .D

. “f lash ed ” th e y o u n g m an

acro ss th e street. [ T h e p etitio n er] said th at E .D

. p u sh ed [ th e p etitio n er] d o w n

o n h is b ed an d b eg an strik in g an d k ick in g h im

. [ T h e p etitio n er] p u sh ed E .D

.
o f f th e b ed o n to th e f

lo o r. [ T h e p etitio n er] d en ied th at th ere w as an y sex u al

co n tact b etw een h im an d E .D

. [ T h e p etitio n er] said th at h e w as w eak f ro m h is
ch em o th erap y , an d E .D . w as taller th an [ th e p etitio n er] an d w eig h ed m o re.

[ T h e p etitio n er] said th at h is so n cam e in to th e b ed ro o m an d th en M s. D en n ey

. K ev in O d o m th reaten ed to b eat u p [ t h e p e titio n er]

, an d [ th e

p etitio n er] to ld th em h e w o u ld g o to h is sister’s h o u se in M ississip p i u n til
“ev ery b o d y co o ls d o w n .” [ T h e p etitio n er] said th at h e w as scared o f h is so n

. [ T h e p e t i t i o n e r ] d id n o t reco llect M s. D en n ey ask in g h im if h e h ad to u ch ed

E .D

. [ T h e p etitio n er] said th at h e ex ch an g ed a f ew letters w ith M s. D en n ey

w h ile h e w as in M ississip p i, an d [ th e p etitio n er] ’s sister talk ed to M s. D en n ey b y telep h o n e.

[ T h e p etitio n er] said th at h is statem en t to In v es t i g ato r K en n am o re

co n cern in g h is sex u al co n ta c t w ith E .D

. w as u n tru e. [ T h e p etitio n er] stated
th at In v e s t i g a to r K en n am o re “w as p retty ro u g h ,” an d “g o t in [ h is] f ace real
h ard .” [ T h e p etitio n er] d en ied th at h e in itiated an y sex u al co n tact w ith E .D

.

O n c ro ss-ex am in atio n , [ th e p etitio n er] ack n o w led g ed th at h e d id n o t

s a y th at E .D

. slap p ed o r stru ck h im in h is statem en t to In v estig ato r

-5-K en n am o re. [ T h e p etitio n er] d en ied th at E .D

. p u lled d o w n h is b o x ers o r th at

h e h ad an y ty

p e o f sex u al co n t a c t w ith h er. [ T h e p etitio n er] ack n o w led g ed
th at h e k n ew h e h ad b een ch arg ed w ith rap e o f a ch ild at th e tim e th at h e g av e h is statem en t, b u t stated th at h e d id n o t k n o w th e len g th o f h i s p o t e n t i al

sen ten ce u n til later. [ T h e p etitio n er] said th at h e last u n d erw en t ch em o th erap y
ap p ro x im ately

o n e y ear b ef

o re th e in cid en t.

T h e S tate called as a r e b u ttal w itn ess A n g ela A n d ers, a co rrectio n al

o f f icer w ith th e H ard em an C o u n ty S h erif f ’s D ep artm en t. O n Ju n e 2 1

, 2 0 0 7

, In v estig ato r K en n am o re ask ed O f f icer A n d ers to step in to th e in terv iew ro o m

an d read [ th e p etitio n er] ’s stateme n t t o h im b ecau se [ th e p etitio n er] d id n o t
h av e h is g lasses w ith h im

. O f f icer A n d ers r e a d th e statem en t to [ th e

p etitio n er]

, an d th en sh e sig n ed th e statem en t alo n g w ith [ th e p etitio n er] an d
th e in v estig atin g o f

f icers.

Id . at * 1 -4

.

O n Ju ly 1 2

, 2 0 1 0

, th e p etitio n er f iled a tim ely p ro se p etitio n f o r p o st-co n v i c t i o n relief

. C o u n sel w as ap p o in ted

, an d n o am en d ed p etitio n f o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief w as f iled

. In h i s p e titio n , th e p etitio n er raised a n u m b er o f alleg atio n s o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f

co u n sel. T h e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt co n d u cted an e vi de nt i a r y hearin g , at w h ich th e p etitio n er testif ied th at h e retain ed co u n sel to rep resen t h im in h is rap e o f

a ch ild case. H e b eliev ed

1

th at, at th at tim e, h is p o o r m en tal an d p h y sical states co u ld h av e p lay ed a ro le in th e d ef en se

o f h is case. H e ex p lain ed th at h e w as d iag n o sed w ith co lo n can cer in S ep tem b er 2 0 0 2 an d
h ad g o n e th ro u g h th ree su rg eries an d a tw o -y ear reg im en o f rad iatio n an d ch em o th erap y

. O n e o f th e sid e e f

f e c t s o f h is co lo n can cer treatm en t w as im p o ten ce. A s a resu lt o f th e f in an cial to ll o f can cer o n th eir m arriag e an d h is im p o ten ce, h is w if

e o f th irty y ears lef

t h im
in A p ril 2 0 0 4

. T h e p etitio n er’s g ran d ch ild also d ied

, an d th e p etitio n er started self

m ed icatin g w ith “alco h o l an d p ills.”

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at co u n sel v isited h im in j ail in O cto b er 2 0 0 7 an d in f o rm ed
h im o f a p lea o f

f er f o r ten y ears at 1 0 0 %

. C o u n sel ad v ised th e p etitio n er th at it w o u l d b e in h is b est in terest to accep t th e p lea. C o u n sel also ad v ised th e p etitio n er th at it w o u ld b e

v ery d if f icu lt to p rev ail at trial g iv en th e n atu re o f th e ch arg e.

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at h e d iscu ssed h is p h y sical an d m en tal issu es w ith co u n sel,

an d h e b eliev ed th at co u n sel o b tain ed h is m ed ical reco rd s. H o w e v e r , h e d id n o t h av e a

p sy ch o sex u al ev alu atio n p rio r to t rial. T h e p etitio n er b eliev ed th at h ad co u n sel b ased h is

We wil l l imit t he maj ori ty of our fa ct ual re ci ta ti on t o t he t est imony re le vant i n t his app eal

. 1

-6-d ef

en se o n th e p etitio n er’s sex u al in ab ilities, th e o u tco m e o f h is tria l w o u ld h av e b een d if f eren t. T h e p etitio n er d id n o t recall ev er d iscu ssin g w ith co u n sel th e p o ssib ility o f u sin g h is ex -w if

e as a p o ten tial w itn ess. T h e p etitio n er an d co u n sel n ev er d iscu ssed th e p o ssib ility

o f h av in g a m ed ical ex p ert testif y to th e ef

f ects o f can cer an d rad iatio n o n o n e’s se x u al
ab ilities.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , th e p etitio n er ack n o w led g ed th at h e d id n o t h av e k n o w led g e

o f all o f co u n sel’s in v estig ativ e activ ities p rio r to trial b ecau se h e w as in carcer a t ed

. H e ad m itted th at it w as b ro u g h t b ef o re th e j u ry th at h e w as a can cer su rv iv o r an d th at o n e o f th e

reaso n s th e v ictim ’s f

am ily to o k h im in w as b ec a u s e h e h ad h ad can cer. T h e p etitio n er d en ied rap in g th e v ictim

. H e co u ld n o t recall w h eth er h e testi f i e d ab o u t h is im

p o ten ce at trial an d ack n o w led g ed th at h e co u ld h av e to ld th e j u ry w h atev er h e w an ted it to h ear w h en h e testif ied

. T h e p etitio n er said th at h is statem en t to th e in v estig ato r w as n o t c o r r e c t o r

v o lu n tarily

g iv en

.

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at h e h ad p racticed law f o r th irty -f iv e y ears an d ex clu siv ely
h an d led crim in al cases. C o u n sel said th at, o v er th e co u rse o f h is rep resen tatio n , h e v isited
th e p etitio n er in j ail f

iv e o r six time s i n a d d i t i o n to th e tim es th ey m et in co u rt. C o u n sel
f o u n d th e p etitio n er to b e a “p erso n ab le, co o p erativ e p erso n .” C o u n sel o b tain e d t h e

p etitio n er’s w o rk an d m ed ical h isto ry a n d in f o rm ed th e S tate o f th e p etitio n er’s m ed ical

p ro b lem s w ith th e h o p e th e S tate w o u ld “tak e th at in to co n sid eratio n .” C o u n sel n o ted th at

ev ery o n e w as aw are th at th e p etitio n er h ad h ad can cer, u n d erg o n e treatm en t, a n d w a s n o t
in th e b est o f h ealth

. A lth o u g h th e p etitio n er “w as h av in g serio u s p ro b lem s d ealin g w ith th e situ atio n ,” co u n s e l b eliev ed th at h e u n d ersto o d ev ery th in g th ey d iscu ssed an d th eir
“co m m u n icatio n w as v ery

easy .”

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at h e k n ew ab o u t th e p etitio n er’s alco h o lism an d d ru g u se, b u t h e w as n o t in f

o rm ed b y th e p etitio n er a b o u t h is b ein g im p o ten t. C o u n sel said th at h e “c[ o u ld ] n ’t in v estig ate w h at [ h e] d [ id ] n ’t k n o w ab o u t an d

. . . [ t h e p e t itio n er] n ev er to ld [ h im ] th at, n ev er to ld th e in v estig ato rs

. . ., n ev er m en tio n ed it in h is testim o n y in th e m o tio n
to su p p ress, n ev er m en tio n ed it in h is trial testim o n y .” H e n o ted th a t h e “w o u ld h av e certain ly m ad e th at o f

ev id en tiary

u se f o r w h at it w as w o rth ,” alth o u g h h e co n sid ered it to
b e “an im p erf ect d ef en se.”

T r i a l c o u n sel testif

ied th at th e p etitio n er receiv ed a ten -y ear o f f er, an d co u n s e l

reco m m en d ed th at h e tak e it. C o u n sel th o u g h t th at th e p etitio n er’s case w as o n e th at “d id n ’t

n eed to g o to trial,” b u t th e p etitio n er d eclin ed th e S tate’s o f f er.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , trial co u n sel reiterated th at th e p etitio n er’s m ed ical co n d itio n

w as n ev er in co n tro v ersy , th eref o re, th ere w as n o reaso n to ad m it h is m ed ical reco rd s at trial.

-7-C o u n sel said th at th e p etitio n er n ev er d isc u s s e d t h e p o ssib ility o f u sin g h is ex -w if e as a

w itn ess to h is im

p o ten ce an d

, b ecau se co u n sel d id n o t k n o w ab o u t th e p etitio n er’s
im p o ten ce, h e w o u ld n o t h av e k n o w n “to call h er to v erif y th at f act.” C o u n sel stated th at

n o n e o f th e p etitio n er’s p ro b lem s w ith an x iety o v er th e situ atio n ro se “to th e lev el o f ask in g f o r a m ed ical o r a m en tal ex am in atio n .”

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at, b ecau se th e v ictim w as elev en y ears o ld at th e tim e o f th e

o f f en se, h e f elt th at a m o tio n f

o r a h e a r i n g reg ard in g h er p rio r sex u al h isto ry w o u ld h av e b een “f riv o lo u s” an d n o t leg ally

su p p o rtab le “b ecau se sh e’s in cap ab le o f g iv in g co n sen t.”
C o u n sel said th at h e th o u g h t it w as to th e p etitio n e r ’ s ad v an tag e th at th e v ictim d id n o t

u n d erg o a f

o ren sic ex am in atio n

. C o u n sel b ro u g h t it o u t at t r i a l t h a t t h ere w as a d elay
b etw een w h en th e o f

f en se o ccu rred an d w h en th e v ictim to ld h er m o th er. H e b eliev ed th at th e d elay w en t ag ain st th e v ictim ’s cred ib ility

. C o u n sel said th at h e h ad ex ten siv e

n eg o tiatio n s w ith th e S tate an d m an ag ed to h av e th e ch arg e red u ced f ro m a C lass A f

elo n y
to a C lass B f

elo n y , b u t th e p etitio n er d id n o t w an t to accep t th e S tate’s o f f er.

T h e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt f iled a w r i t ten o rd er d en y in g th e p etitio n o n F eb ru ary 1

, 2 0 1 1

. T h e co u rt n o ted th at th e p etitio n er’s “m aj o r p o in t o f co n ten tio n ” w as th at tria l

co u n sel’s f

ailu re to p ro m o te th e d ef

en se o f th e p etitio n er’s im p o ten cy led to h is co n v ictio n

. H o w ev er, th e co u rt n o ted th at th e p etitio n er p resen ted n o p ro o f

, in th e f o rm o f m ed ical p ro o f

o r testim o n y o f h is ex -w if e w h o w as ev id en tly aw are o f h is co n d itio n , at th e ev i d e n t i a r y h earin g

. T h e co u rt also accred ited th e testim o n y o f trial co u n sel th at th e p etitio n er h ad n o t

to ld h im th at h e w as im

p o ten t.

A N A L Y S IS

O n ap p eal, th e p etitio n er arg u es th at th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt erred in f in d in g th at
h e receiv ed ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel. H e asserts th at h is im p o ten ce w as a d ef

en se to th e ch arg e ag ain st h im

an d , h ad trial co u n sel o f f ered ev id en ce o f

h is im p o ten ce, th e resu lt

o f th e p ro ceed in g w o u ld h av e b een d if f eren t.

P o st-co n v ictio n relief “sh all b e g ran ted w h en th e co n v ictio n o r sen ten ce is v o id o r

v o id ab le b ecau se o f th e ab rid gm en t o f an y rig h t g u aran teed b y th e C o n stitu tio n o f T en n essee

o r th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e U n ited S tates.” T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 0 -3 0

- 1 0 3 ( 2 0 0 6 ). T h e

p etitio n er b ears th e b u rd en o f p ro v in g f actu al alleg atio n s b y clear an d co n v in cin g ev id en ce. Id

. § 4 0 -3 0 -1 1 0 (f

). Wh en an ev id en tiary h earin g is h eld in th e p o st-co n v ictio n settin g , th e f in d in g s o f f

act m ad e b y th e co u rt are co n clu siv e o n ap p eal u n les s t h e e v i d e n ce

p rep o n d erates ag ain st th em

. S ee Wiley v

. S tate, 1 8 3 S .W.3 d 3 1 7

, 3 2 5 (T en n

. 2 0 0 6 ). Wh en

rev iew in g f

actu al issu es, th e ap p ellate co u rt w ill n o t rew eig h th e ev id en ce an d w ill in stead
d ef er to th e trial co u rt’s f

in d in g s as to th e cred ib ility o f w it n e s s e s o r th e w eig h t o f th eir

-8-testim o n y . Id . H o w ev er, rev iew o f a trial co u rt’s ap p licatio n o f th e law to th e f acts o f th e

case is d e n o vo , w ith n o p resu m

p tio n o f co rrectn ess. S ee R u f f v

. S tate, 9 7 8 S .W.2 d 9 5

, 9 6 (T en n

. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e issu e o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel, w h i c h p resen ts m ix ed

q u estio n s o f f

act an d law

, is rev iew ed d e n o vo , w ith a p resu m

p tio n o f co rrectn ess g iv en o n ly

to th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt’s f in d i n g s o f f

act. S ee F ield s v

. S tate, 4 0 S .W.3 d 4 5 0

, 4 5 8 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ); B u rn s v . S tate, 6 S .W.3 d 4 5 3 , 4 6 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ).

T h e rig h t to ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n s e l is saf eg u ard ed b y th e C o n stitu tio n s o f
b o th th e U n ited S tates an d th e S tate o f T en n essee. S ee U .S

. C o n st. A m en d

. V I; T en n

. C o n st. art. I, § 9

. T o estab lish a claim o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel, th e p etitio n er h as th e b u r d e n to sh o w b o th th at trial co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce w as d ef

icien t an d th at co u n sel’s
d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce p rej u d iced th e o u tco m e o f th e p ro ceed in g

. S trick lan d v

. Wash in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S

. 6 6 8

, 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ); see S tate v

. T ay lo r, 9 6 8 S .W.2 d 9 0 0

, 9 0 5 ( T e n n

. C r i m. A p p

. 1 9 9 7 ) (n o tin g th at sam e stan d ard f o r d eterm in in g in ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel th at i s

ap p lied in f

ed eral cases also ap p lies in T en n essee). T h e S trick lan d stan d ard is a tw o -p ro n g
test:

F irst, th e [ p etitio n er] m u st sh o w th at co u n sel’s p erf o rm an c e w a s d e f

icien t.
T h is req u ires sh o w in g th at co u n sel m ad e erro rs so serio u s t h at co u n sel w as

n o t f u n ctio n in g as t h e “co u n sel” g u aran teed th e [ p etitio n er] b y th e S ix th

A m e n d me n t

. S eco n d

, th e [ p etitio n er] m u st sh o w th at th e d ef

icien t

p erf o rm an ce p rej u d iced th e d ef en se. T h is req u ires sh o w in g th at co u n sel’s

erro rs w ere so serio u s as to d ep riv e th e [ p etitio n er] o f a f air trial, a trial w h o se

resu lt is reliab le.

4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 7

.

T h e d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce p ro n g o f th e test is satisf ied b y sh o w in g th at “co u n sel’s

acts o r o m issio n s w ere so serio u s as to f all b elo w an o b

j ectiv e stan d ard o f

reaso n ab len ess

u n d er p rev ailin g p ro f

essio n a l n o r ms

. ” G o ad v

. S tate, 9 3 8 S .W.2 d 3 6 3

, 3 6 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 6 ) (citin g S trick lan d

, 4 6 6 U .S

. at 6 8 8 ; B a x ter v

. R o se, 5 2 3 S .W.2 d 9 3 0

, 9 3 6 (T en n

. 1 9 7 5 )).

T h e rev iew in g co u rt m

u st in d u lg e a stro n g p resu m p ti o n t h a t t h e co n d u ct o f co u n sel f alls

w ith in th e ran g e o f reaso n ab le p ro f essio n al assistan ce, see S trick lan d

, 4 6 6 U .S

. at 6 9 0

, an d

m ay n o t seco n d -g u ess th e tactical an d strateg ic ch o ices m ad e b y trial co u n sel u n less th o se ch o ices w ere u n in f

o rm ed b ecau se o f in ad eq u ate p r e p aratio n

. S ee H ellard v

. S tate, 6 2 9
S .W.2 d 4

, 9 (T en n

. 1 9 8 2 ). T h e p rej u d ice p ro n g o f th e test is satisf ied b y s h o w i n g a

reaso n ab le p ro b ab ility

, i.e., a “p ro b ab ility su f f icien t to u n d e r mi n e co n f id en ce in th e

o u tco m e,” th at “b u t f

o r co u n sel’s u n p ro f

essio n al erro rs, th e resu lt o f th e p ro ceed in g w o u ld
h av e b een d if

f eren t.” S trick lan d

, 4 6 6 U .S

. at 6 9 4

. T h e sam e p rin cip les ap p ly in d eterm in in g th e ef f ectiv en ess o f trial an d ap p ellate co u n sel. C am p b ell v

. S t a t e , 9 0 4 S .W.2 d 5 9 4

, 5 9 6

-9-(T en n . 1 9 9 5 ).

A f ter rev iew

, w e co n clu d e th at th e p etitio n er h as f ailed to p ro v e th at trial co u n sel

p erf o rm ed d ef

icien tly o r th at an y d ef

icien cy cau sed h im p rej u d ice. T h e p etitio n er asserts in
h is b rief

, “th a t h e d iscu ssed h is sex u al p ro b lem s resu ltin g f ro m th e co lo n can cer

. . . is

u n co n tro v erted ,” an d h is m ed ical reco rd s w ere n o t o f f e r e d i n to ev id en ce. H o w ev er, th e

p etitio n er o n ly testif

ied th at h e d iscu ssed h is “h ealth ” an d “p h y sica l” p ro b lem s w ith trial

co u n sel; h e n ev er sp ecif

ically testif

ied th at h e d iscu ssed h is im p o ten ce w ith co u n sel. A lso

,
co n trary to th e p etitio n er’s assertio n , trial co u n sel testif ied th at th e p etitio n er d id n o t in f o rm h im o f th e p etitio n er’s im p o ten cy , o r co u n sel said h e w o u ld h av e u tilized su ch as a d ef en se
to t h e b est o f h is ab ilities. T rial co u n sel also testif ied th at h e d id n o t in tro d u ce th e

p etitio n er’s m ed ical reco rd s b ecau se th e p etitio n er’s m ed ical co n d itio n w as n ev er in

co n tro v ersy

. T h e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt ex p licitly accred ited th e testim o n y o f trial co u n sel.

T h u s, th e p etitio n er h as f ailed to p ro v e th at trial co u n sel ren d ered d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce.

T h e p etitio n er ad d itio n ally asserts th at h is ex -w if e w o u ld h av e b een ab le to testif y at trial co n cern in g h is im

p o ten cy ; h o w ev er, th e p etitio n er testif ied at th e ev id en tiary h earin g th at h e n ev er d iscu ssed w ith trial co u n sel th e p o ssib ility o f u sin g h is ex -w if e as a w itn ess. L ik ew ise, co u n sel testif

ied th e p etitio n er n ev er d iscu ssed th e p o ssib ility o f u sin g h is ex -w if e

as a w itn ess to h is im

p o ten ce an d elab o rated th at, b ecau se co u n sel d id n o t k n o w ab o u t th e

p etitio n er’s im

p o ten ce, h e w o u ld n o t h av e k n o w n “to call [ th e p etitio n er’s ex -w if e] to v erif y th at f act.” A g ain

, th e p etitio n er h a s f ailed to p ro v e th at trial co u n sel ren d ered d ef icien t

p erf o rm an ce.

F u rth erm o re, th e p etitio n er d id n o t call h is ex -w if e at th e ev id en tiary h earin g o r o f f er h is m ed ical reco rd s in to ev id en ce. T o satisf y th e p rej u d ice req u irem en t o f S trick lan d w h en alleg in g th at co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to o f

f er testim o n y f

ro m a f av o rab le w itn ess, th e p o st-co n v ictio n p etitio n er m u st “(1 ) p ro d u ce th e w itn ess at h is p o st-co n v ictio n h earin g ; (2 ) sh o w th at th ro u g h reaso n ab le in v estig atio n , trial co u n sel co u ld h av e lo cated th e w itn ess;

an d (3 ) elicit b o th f

av o rab le an d m aterial testim o n y f ro m th e w itn ess.” D en to n v

. S tate, 9 4 5
S .W.2 d 7 9 3

, 8 0 2 -0 3 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 ) (citin g B lack v

. S tate, 7 9 4 S .W.2 d 7 5 2

, 7 5 7 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 0 )). With o u t su ch

, th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt w as u n ab le to ev alu ate

w h eth er th e f

ailu re to o f

f er th e sam e w as p rej u d icial to th e p etitio n er.

In an y ev en t, th e p etitio n er h as also f ailed to p ro v e th at o f

f erin g ev id en ce o f h is
im p o ten ce w o u ld h av e ch an g ed th e o u tco m e o f th e case. T h e p etitio n er w as co n v icted o f

rap e o f a ch ild

, w h ich is d ef in ed as th e “u n law f

u l sex u al p en etratio n o f a v ictim b y th e d ef en d an t o r th e d ef

en d an t b y a v ictim

, if th e v ictim is m o re th an th ree (3 ) y ears o f ag e b u t less th an th irteen (1 3 ) y ears o f ag e.” T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 3 9 -1 3 -5 2 2 (a) (2 0 0 6 )

. “S ex u al

p e n e t r atio n ” is “sex u al in terco u rse,

. . . o r an y o th er in tru sio n , h o w ev er slig h t, o f an y p a r t

-10-o f a p erso n ’s b o d y o r o f an y o b j ect in to th e g en ital o r an al o p en in g s o f th e v ictim ’s

. . . b o d y , b u t em issio n o f sem en is n o t req u ired [ .] ” Id

. § 3 9 -1 3 -5 0 1 (7 ). E v en if th e p etitio n er is in f act
i mp o t e n t

, th at d o es n o t m ean th at h e can n o t b e g u ilty o f rap e o f a ch ild

. S ee S t a t e v

. G o o d w in

, 9 0 9 S .W.2 d 3 5

, 4 4 -4 5 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) (“[ I] m p o ten ce is n o t a d ef

en se
to attem p ted rap e. T h e f

act th at th e D ef

en d an t w as n o t ab le to p erf o rm p en ile p en etratio n d o es n o t m ean th at h e co u ld n o t b e g u ilty o f attem p ted rap e o r ev en rap e.”); see also S tate

v

. B o w les, 5 2 S .W.3 d 6 9

, 7 4 (T en n

. 2 0 0 1 ) (v ictim ’s testim o n y th at th e d e f e n d an t p ressed
h is p en is ag ain st h er v u lv a w ith h is h an d an d w as o n ly p rev en ted f ro m f u ll p en etratio n b y h is f ailu re to ach iev e an erectio n w as su f f icien t ev id en ce o f p en etratio n to su stain co n v ictio n f o r ag g rav ated rap e). H ere, th e j u ry w as p resen ted w ith th e p etitio n er’s statem en t to an in v estig ato r in w h ich h e d en ied ach iev in g f u ll p en ile p en etratio n , an d th e j u ry still co n v icted
h im o f rap e o f a ch ild

. T h e p etitio n er h as f ailed to p ro v e th at ev id en c e o f h i s im p o ten ce

w o u ld h av e ch an g ed th e j u ry ’s v erd ict ag ain st h im

.

C O N C L U S IO N

B ased o n th e f

o reg o in g au th o rities an d reaso n in g , w e af f irm th e d en ial o f th e p etitio n

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A L A N E

. G L E N N

, J U D G E

-11-