# FILED Apr il 17, 1 996 Cec il Crowson , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN T HE C OU RTOFC RI MI NAL A PPEALS OFT EN NE SSEE A T JACKSON JA NU ARY

SES SION , 199 6 TO NY V. CARR UT HE RS , ) C. C. A. N O. 02C 01-9505- CR -0 0130 ) Appel lan t, ) ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS . ) ) H O N . B E R N I E W E I N M AN STA TE OFT EN NE SSEE, ) JUD GE ) Appel lee . ) (Post Conv iction Relie f)

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: MR . C RA IG V. M ORTON, II CH AR LES W . BU RS ON Atto rn ey at Law Atto rn ey Gene ra l and Repor

ter 212 Ad ams Avenue Me mphis , TN 381 03 CLI NTON J. M OR GAN Atto rney General’s Of

fice 450 J ames Rober

tso n Parkway Nas hv il le, TN 37243 J OH N W . PI ER OTTI Di strict Attor ney

Gene ra l RE GIN ALD R . H EN DE RS ON Ass is tant Di strict Attor ney 201 Po pla r Avenue Third F loo r Me mphis , TN 381 03 OPIN ION F ILED______ _________

_________ AFF IR ME D JER RY L. SM ITH, JU DG E-2- 

## OPI NI ON

T h e A p p e lla n t, T o n yV o n C a rr u th e rs , w a s c o n v ic te d o f a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt i n 1990. He was sent enced t o t en y ears i m pr i sonm ent . I n Sept em ber of 1992, A p p e l l a n t p e ti ti o n e d fo r po s t- c o n vi c ti o n reli e f i n t h e S hel by C oun ty C ri m i n a l C o u rt a lle g in g th a t h e re c e ive d th e in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l in vio la tio n o f h is r i ght s u ndert he Si x t h Am endm ent t o t he U ni t ed St at es C onst i t ut i on. Fol l owi ng a n e vi d e n ti a ry h e a ri n g , the tr i a l c o u rt d e n i e d A p p e l l a n t’ s p e ti ti o n . O n a p p e a l, Appel l a n ta g a i n as sert s t hathi s t r i al att or neyi nadequat el ypr epar ed and pr esent ed t he defense at t r i al and t hatt he l owerco urter r oneous l yco ncl uded ot herwi se. Fi ndi ng no er r ori n t hi s r ecord w i t h r egard t o t he deni al of t he pet i t i on, w e a ffi rm th e d e c isio n o f t h e c rim in a l c o u rt.
W h e n a n A p p e lla n t's p o s t c o n v ic tio n c la im in v o lve s t h e S ixt h A m e n d m e n t r i ghtt o ef

fect i v e as si st ance of

co unsel , thi s Courtm ustdet er m i ne whet hert he adv i ce gi v en orse rv i ces r ender ed byt he att or neyar e wi t hi n t he range of com pet ence dem anded o f att or ney s i n c r i m i nal ca ses . Bax t erv . R ose, 523 S. W . 2d 930, 936 ( T enn. 1975)
. T o pr ev ai l on a cl ai m of i nef fect i v e as si st ance of couns el , a pe t i t i onerm ustsh ow t hathi s orhercounsel ' s r epr esent at i on fel l bel ow the o bj e c ti v e s tan d a rd o f B a xter a n d , a d d i ti o n a l l y, tha t this s u b -sta n d a rd r epr esent at i on ac t ual l ypr ej udi ced t he de fe n se. St r i ck l and v . W ashi ngt on, 466 U .S . 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 ).
O urSupr em e C ourthas hel d t hat“ [ t ] o es t abl i sh act ual pr ej udi ce, t he defendantm ustdem onst r at e t hat‘ t her e i s a r eason abl e pr obabi l i tyt hat , butfor couns el ’ s u nprofess i onal er r ors, t he resul tof t he proceed i ng wo u l d hav e been-3-

di f fer ent . . . . A pr obabi l i tyi s ‘ r eason a bl e’ i f i ti s ‘ suf

f i ci entt o under m i ne conf i dence i n t he out com e’ of t he proceed i ng. ” O v ert on v . St at e, 874 S. W . 2d 6, 1 1 (T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ) (q u o ti n g S trick la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 ).

" I n p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f p r o c e e d i n g s t h e Pe t i t i o n e rh a s t h e b u r d e n of pr ov i ng t he al l egat i ons i n hi s [ orher] pet i t i on bya preponderance of t he e vi d e n c e ." M c B e e v . S ta te , 6 5 5 S .W .2d 1 9 1 , 1 9 5 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ). Furt her m or e, t he fact ual f i ndi ngs of t he t r i al courti n a post - conv i ct i on proceed i ng ar e con cl usi v e on app eal unl ess t he a ppe l l at e cou rtf i nds t ha tt he e v i den ce pr eponderat es agai nst t he f i ndi ngs. But l er v . St at e, 789 S. W . 2d 898, 899 ( T enn. 1990)
. I n r ev i ewi ng t he deni al of co l l at e r al r el i ef , t hi s Courti s b ound byt he fo ll o w in g w e ll e s ta b li s h e d ru le s o f a p p e ll a te re vie w : ( 1) t hi s c ourtca nnotr ewei gh orr eev al uat e t h e ev i dence or subs t i t ut e i t s i n fer ences fort hose dr awn byt he t r i al j udge, ( 2) quest i ons conc er ni ng t he cr edi bi l i tyof w i t ness es, wei ghtand v al ue t o be gi v en t hei rt est i m ony, and fact ual i ssues rai sed b yev i den ce ar e r esol v ed byt he t r i al j udge, and ( 3) on appeal , t he pet i t i onerhas t h e b u r d e n o f

d e m o n s t r a t i n g w h yt h e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t he r ecord preponderat es a g a i nstt he j udgm entent er ed byt he t r i al ju d g e . T a yl o r v. S tate , 8 7 5 S .W .2d 6 8 4 , 6 8 6 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) (c itin g B l a c kv. S tate , 7 9 4 S .W .2d 7 5 2 , 7 5 5 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 )).
T he r ecord ref l e ct s t hat , pr i ort o hi s t r i al , Appel l antwas appoi nt ed four suc ces si v e att or ney s. Due t o c ont i n u i n g di ss at i sfact i on, he reques t ed t he di sm i ss al of

eac h of

t he f i rstt hr ee. The A ppel l ant ' s l astatt or ney , who re p re s e n te d h im a t t ria l, w a s a p p o in te d l e s s th a n a m o n th p rio r to tri a l.-4- Seve r al of t he spec i f i c al l egat i ons r ai sed by Appel l ant st em f r om t he per i od o f t i me b e tw e e n t h e t r i a l a t t o r n e y ’ s a p p o i n t me n ta n d t h e t r i a l . A p p e l l a n tc l a i ms t h a th i s a t t o r n e yo n l yi n t e rv i e w e d h i m o n c e b e fo r e t r i a l a n d t h e n me tw i t h h i m a few t i m es br i ef l yi n t he c ourtroom . Al so, Appel l antm ai nt a i n s t h a tt he t r i al a tto rn e yfa ile d to e n g a g e in d is c o v e ry u n til th e d a yo f th e tria l.
T o t he c ont r ary , t he t r i al att or neyt est i f i ed t hat , onc e he t ook ov er t he c ase, he i m m edi at el yas si gned an i nv est i gat orf r om t he publ i c defender ’ s of f i ce t o t he cas e. Counsel ’ s n ot es, t o whi ch he cons t ant l yr efer r ed dur i ng t he pos t - conv i ct i on hear i ng, r ef l ect ed an adequat e k nowl edge of Appel l ant ' s c ase. The t r i al j udge found t hat“ t he t r i al att or neyhad adequat e l y d i sc uss ed t he c ase wi t h hi s c l i ent p ri o r t o t ri a l a n d p ro p e r pre -t ria l i n ve s ti g a ti o n . . . h a d b e e n m a d e .” W e a re unabl e t o f i nd t hatt he ev i dence pr eponderat es agai nstt hi s fi ndi ng.
F u rt h e r mo r e , t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t h a ta d d i t i o n a l t i me b e tw e e n tria l c o u n s e l’s a p p o in tm e n t a n d tria l w o u ld h a v e le d to a d iffe re n t re s u lt i n t he case. As suc h, A ppel l anthas fai l ed t o m eethi s b ur den of prov i ng t hatany p reju d ice re s u lt e d from t h e att o rn e y’s a ll e g e d ly d il a to ry d isc o ve ry a n d i n a d e q u a te pr et r i al i nv est i gat i on.
O nl yAppel l antand hi s t r i al att or neyt est i f i ed att h e pos t - conv i ct i on hear i ng. As i ndi cat ed abov e, t her e w a s so m e di sc r epanc yi n t hei rv ersi ons of t he conv ersat i on and pr epar at i on whi ch pr ecede d t he t r i al . The m aj or i tyof A p p e lla n t's te s tim o n yre la te d to h is a tto rn e y ’s a lle g e d fa ilu re to c a ll c e rt a in wi t ness es whom Appel l antfel twoul d h a v e been cr uci al t o hi s d efense. Appel l antt est i f i ed t hat , t hough he t ol d hi s at t or neyaboutt hese wi t ness es, t hey-5-

we r e ne v ersubp oen aed . H e l at eradm i t t ed t hattwo of t he w i t nesse s had i n fact been s ubpoenaed . T he t ri a l a tt o r ney t est i f i ed t hathe at t em pt ed t o l ocat e everywi t ness m ent i oned byAppel l ant . O ne of t hese pot ent i al wi t ness es was presentatt ri al howev erhe was notca l l ed as a wi t ness bec ause he cl ai m ed t o hav e no personal know l edg e of

t he e v ent s sur r oun di ng t he sh oot i ng. An ot her pot ent i al wit n e s s, li s te d a s a s ta te ’s w it n e s s , h a d g ive n a s ta te m e n t i n c rim in a ti n g A p p e ll a n t. T her efor e, defense couns el di d notca l l hi m . As fort he t hi r d possi bl e w i t ness , t he tr ia l a tto rn e y h a d n o te d th a t A p p e lla n t h a d to ld h im th a t h e , A p p e ll a n t , w o u ld com m uni cat e wi t h t hi s wi t ness bec ause cont actby an a t t or neym i ghtof fend t he wi t ness.
T he t r i al co urtfound t hatt he t r i al att or ney m ade an ef fort t o l ocat e al l t he wi t ness es of

whi ch he had knowl edge. Appel l ant h a s p re sent ed nak ed al l egat i ons t o t he c ont r arywi t houtev en a t r ace of ev i dence whi ch pr eponderat es agai nstt he t ri a l co urt ’ s f i ndi ngs. Mor eov er , Appel l anthas agai n fai l ed t o s how anyac t ual pr ej udi ce wi t h r egard t o t hi s p oi nt . Ther e i s n o ev i dence t hatt r i al te s tim o n yo f th e s e w itn e s s e s w o u ld h a v e b e e n fa v o ra b le t o t h e a c c u s e d h a d it been a partof

t he Appel l ant ' s d efense. See T ay l orv . St at e, 8 7 5 S. W . 2d 684, 687 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1994) ( no pr ej udi ce dem onst r at ed wher e pos t - conv i ct i on pet i t i onerfai l ed t o show t hatpot ent i al defense wi t ness es, who wer e notca l l ed by t r i al counsel , w oul d hav e t est i f i ed fav or abl y )
. I ndeed, t he t est i m onyof t he t r i al at t or neysu ggest s t hatatl eastone of t he wi t ness es gav e a s t at em ent cor r obor at i ng t he St at e’ s v ersi on of t he shoot i ng whi l e anot hercl ai m ed t o k now not hi ng abou tt he c r i m e.-6- Fi nal l y , Appel l anti nsi st ed t hatc ert ai n m edi cal r ecords r ef l ect i ng an i ncons i st encyi n t he v i ct i m ’ s st at em entw i t h r egard t o how m anyt i m es she was shotsh oul d hav e been adm i t t ed att r i al . Att he pos t - conv i ct i on hear i ng, t he t r i al at t or neyt est i f i ed t he v i ct i m had st at ed on di f fer entoc cas i ons t hatsh e had been shott hr ee a nd f i v e t i m es. T he t r i al a t t or ney revi ew ed t he m edi cal r ecords whi ch re v e a le d th a t th e w itn e s s h a d in fa c t b e e n s h o t fo u r tim e s . C o n c lu d in g th a t th is i nfor m at i on di d notadd si gni f i cant l yt o t he cr oss - ex am i nat i on of t he v i ct i m , t he t r i al at t or ney m ade a t act i cal deci si o n n o t t o r efert o i t . A r evi ew i ng co urtm ust d e fer to a n a tt o rn e y’ s t ri a l s tr a teg y o r t a c ti c a l ch o i c e s so l o n g a s t h e y a re i nfor m ed a n d based upon adequa t e pr epar at i on. Hel l ar d v . St at e, 629 S. W . 2d 4, 9 ( T enn. 1982) ; V e rm i l ye v . St at e, 754 S. W . 2d 82, 85 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ).
Because we f i n d tha tAppel l anthas fai l ed t o presentev i dence t hat pr eponderat es agai nstt he t r i al court ’ s conc l usi on t hatt he adv i ce gi v en and t he serv i ces r ender ed byt he t r i al counsel wer e c om pet ent , we af f i r m t he dec i si on of th e tri a l c o u rt .

____________________________________ J E RR Y L . S MI TH , J UD GE-7-

CONCUR:

___________________________________ DA V I D G. H A Y E S , J UD GE

___________________________________ L Y NN W . B RO W N, S P E CI A L J UD GE