### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 19, 200 3

JAC OB LE E D AV IS v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lin coln County

No. S0300138 Charles Lee, Judge

No. M2003- 00744-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Fe bruary 11, 2004

Petitioner, J acob L ee D avis, filed a pr o se petition for post-c onviction relief and wa s appointed counsel to assist him during the post-conviction hear ing. Following the evidentiar y hear ing, the trial

c ourt dis mis se d Pe tit ion e r’ s pe tit ion fo r po st- c on vic tio n re lie f. On a pp e a l, P e tit ion e r a

rgue s th a t hi s trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance of counsel beca use they (1) f

ailed to prope rly

conduct voir dire or

prese rve f

or appe al the issues conc ernin g t h e s el ec tion of jurors; (2) f ailed to pursue

m e an i n g f u l p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n s ; an d

( 3 ) f a i l e d t o a d e qu a t e l y a

p p r i z e P e t i t i o n e r

o f h i s r i g h tt o t e s t i f

y. Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f t

he re c or d, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he po st- c on vic tio n c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.

Willi a m C. B arn e s, Jr., Col umb ia , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, Jac ob L e e Da

vis

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; H elena Walton Ya rbroug h, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; W. Michael McCown, District Attorne y Gene ral; an d Ann L . Filer , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

F oll ow inga

jur y tr ia l, P e tit ion e r w a s c on vi c te d o f f ir st d e g re e mur de r, re c kle ss endang erme nt, and ca

rry ing a wea pon on school proper

ty . Petitioner rec eived a

sentenc e of life imprisonment for the murde r convic tion with concurre nt sentence s of one y ear for each of the other convictions. The f

acts surr ounding Petitioner’ s convictions wer e summarized by this Court in the direc t appea l in Sta te v . J

ac ob Le e Da v is , No. M 1999-02496-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 487688 (Tenn. Cr im. Ap p. , N a sh vil le , M ay 8, 20 01 ) a s f

oll ow s:-2-

I n 1 99 7, at the s tart

of the ir se nio r y e ar at L inc oln

County Hi g h Sc ho ol, in Fa y etteville, Tenne ssee, Nic k Creson (the vic tim) and Tony a B is h o p had bee n inv olv e d in

a tw o- y e ar r e la tio ns hi p. Cr e so n a nd B ish op liv e d in

the same
ne ig hb o r h o o d
, a tt e n d e d

th e s a me c h u r c h
, an d

h a d a tt e n d e d s c h o o l t o g e th e r

s in ce sixthg ra de . In th e fa ll o f 1 99 7, Cr e so n a nd B ish op br ok e up and

B ishop be g an to date the D efe ndant. B isho p testified that althoug h she and Cre son were no longe r datin g , th e y

c on tin ue d to sh are a

loc ke r, ha d c la sse s to g e the r and of te n e ng a g e d in sexual re lations, until some time f ollowing the Christmas of 1997. Bishop fu rther te sti fi e d that the De fe nd ant w a s je a lou s o f B ish op ' s c on tin ue d a sso c ia tio n w ith Creson.

I n Marc h of 1998, Def

endant discove red that Bishop and Cre son were having sexual relations and he conf

ronted B ishop about it. Bi s h o p testified that she a nd the De fe nd ant h a d a

thr e e to f our h our d isc us sio n in

he r c ar in th e sch oo l pa

rk inglot
, d u r i n g w h i c h t h e D e f

e n d an tw a s c r

yi n g an d s h a k i n g u n c o n t r o l l a

b l y. T h e n e x td ay, De fe nd ant d e liv e re d th e fo llo wi ngle tte r t o B ish op :
Tony a: In case y ou missed it at break, I want to scre am. When someone ha s a problem they usually g o to friends and lay

their hea d on a shoulder. I

don' t have a shoulder. You told me last nig ht to shut my mouth. W ell here it is.

You know I

will not leave y ou and y ou take a dvant age of me. I

scre am i n protest, and y ou talk about work. I scre am bec ause I

have the fate to f

all for one who could not be mine, and y ou talk about the

weather. I don' t deserve this, Tony a. Fr om the beg inning I have g iven y ou nothing but my

all. For what? To be with y ou. That i s all Ihave asked. I am fa ithful, Iam true, I

am honest. My hear

t screa ms, "how could y ou? " Y ou talk about y ou are not at work.

Ibleed, a nd for that he shoul d bleed as well. J ustice say s he dese rves it. I want to he ar his skin sear and pop under fire while I stand in front of him and re cite the ly

rics to Soma by t h e S mashing Pumpkins . I want to put a thre e inch diame ter hole in his che st from a 12 g aug e. Iwant to dip my fing er in his blood a nd write the words to the song May onnaise on his truc k. My friends sa

y Ishould take his ang er out

o ny o u

. Yo u

kn o w a s we l l as Id o Ica n 'td o t h at

. I tm u s tgo somewher e. Thus this letter.

Do n' t f or g e t. D on ' t lo ok

inn oc e nt an d say that I

a m sc ari ngy ou . I f t

his d o es n 'ts h o w m y

p ai n , I w i l l g i v e u

p

. T h en Iwi l l kn o w y o uwo n 't sy mpathize with me. Under the c ircumstance s this is a mild rea ction. Yo u to ld m e no t to ke e p it ins ide . T his is wh a t is ins ide . I t' s n ot a ll-3- that is ins ide . Als o insi de of me is y our h e art , th e suns hin e y ou are in my life. B ut it has to rain sometimes. Remember I love y ou. Jac ob Da vis

Def endant a nd Bishop continued to date and in April of 1998, the two beg an to have sexual r e lati o n s

. B is h o p te s ti f ie d th a t th e D e f

e n d an t s e e me d h a

p p ie r , a lt h o u g h he

c on tin ue d to c a ll h e r l a te a t ni g ht o r e arl y in the mor nin g , thi nk ing that Cr e so n w ou ld be a t B ish op ' s h ou se . B ish op and De fe nd ant a

tte nd e d th e se nio r p ro m to g e the r i n
e ar l y M ay, an d

a g a i ns h e s t a t e d

t h a tD e f e n d an ta p p e ar e d t o b e h a p p y.

On the eve ning of

May 18, 1999, Bishop and D efe ndant left work at Shoney ' s and went to Wal-Mart to purc hase a preg nancy test for he r. While there, B ishop told t he Def endant that she had purc hased a preg nancy test with Creson on a prior oc casion. Upon hea ring this information, Defe ndant fe ll to the floor and beg an cr y ing a nd sh a kin g un c on tr oll a

bly . Bi sh op wa s abl e to co ns ole De fe nd ant a nd the tw o le ft

Wal

Mart betwe en 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. D efe ndant and B ishop went to Bishop' s house, wh e re the y

ha d s e xua l r e la tio ns , a

nd De fe nd ant l e ft

aro un d 1 :00 a .m.

The nex t mor

n in g , D e f e n d an t a n d B is h o p me t at S h o n e y ' s a t 7 :0 0 a

. m. an d th en proce eded to take their phy sics final exam at 8:00 a.m. Bishop testified that the Def endant se emed to be in a g ood mood. Tiffany

Roberts, Def

endant' s phy sics te a c he r, te sti fi e d th a t the De fe nd ant wa s jok ing aro un d wi th oth e r stu de nts . Ro be rt s further testified that the De fenda nt was the fir st to finish hi s exam and that upon fi nis hin g , h e a sk e d her

fo r s ome pa

pe r. Th e De fe nd ant u se d th is p a pe r t o w ri te Roberts a thre e pag e letter , in which he be rate d her style of tea chingand the sc hool sy ste m. T he De fe nd ant f

ur the r wr ote a

bo ut the pa in he be lie ve d Ro be rt s c a us e d h im, by discussing matters involving his r elationships w ith B ishop, w ith the v i ct i m and wi th o the r s tud e nts in R ob e rt s' ph y sic s c la ss. De fe nd ant a lso wr ote the fo llo wi ngin the letter that he deliver ed to Roberts as he left her class at 9:45 a.m.:

* * *

I f the op ini on s y ou have fo rm e d of me have be e n s tr ic tly ba se d o n my
a c a de mic pe rf

or manc e Ihig hly

re g re t and

re se nt t hat y ou de c ide d to make it a per sonal matter. Per haps y ou knew what y ou wer e doing at the t ime and perhaps y ou did not. But y ou dealt me a very devastating perso nal i ns ult

e arl ie r t his y e ar b y

dis c us sin g my

pe rs on a l li fe wi th that bastard Nicholas Creson (may his soul burn in e ternal t o rment

and the fi re s o f h e ll i tse lf

) an d th e e nti re fo ur

th p e ri od Phy sic s c la ss. Yo u we re a larg e pa

rt of the g re a te st p a in I

have e ve r k

no wn ; a pa in whi ch near ly

c a us e d me to t a ke my

ow n li fe . With th e he lp o f my family Imade it throug h this.-4- B e fo r e y o u d e c i d e t o r i p a t a s tu d e n t ' s l i f e , n e xt t i m e ple a se
rec onsider. I t might save someone the pain t hat I have experience d at y our hands.

Duri ngthe ne xt p e ri od , a

pp ro xima te ly

10 :00 a .m. , B ish op and

the De fe nd ant m e t to clea n out the locker

that they share d. Bishop testified that, a fter the y had finished clea ning out their

locker , the Def

endant wa lked her to he r next class. As Bishop and the Def endant wer e wa lking, Nic k Creson and Cassa ndra Shar p wer e wa lking be hind the m, w he n Sh arp thr e w a p e nn y and hit B ish op . T he De fe nd ant h e ard the pe nn y

hit the floor, so he turned around to f ind Cre son standing be hind them. Bishop testified that Creson said a f

ew wor ds to the Defen d ant, but the Def endant did not say any thing ba ck. F ollowing this incident, B ishop went to her c lass, while the De fenda nt went to his drama class. I n her testimony
, Sharp stated that she apolog ized for hitting B ish op , a nd the n s he and

Cr e so n w a lke d to c la ss.
At approximately

11:30 a.m., Bishop wa s sitti ng in her pre -ca lculus class (whic h she took with Creson), when the Def endant c ame to the c lass looking f or Creson. B ishop tes tifie d th a t w he n Cr e so n a rr ive d in c la ss, the De fe nd ant s too d s tari nga t hi m. B ish op state d th a t D e fe nd ant " ha d his fis ts cl e nc he d be sid e him , str a ig ht d ow n. Just

s t i ff

. He h ad h i s ey es l i k e i n a gaz e. J u s t s t ar i n g. He d i dn 'ts ay an y t h i n g. He wo u l dn 't ta lk. He jus t wa tc he d [Cre so n] wa lk int o c la ss. " Ag a in, B ish op a tte mpt e d to c on so le Def endant. B ishop stated that she did not se e De fenda nt any more that da

y , but later le arn e d th a t he ha d le ft

sc ho ol.

That af ternoon, Allan H igg s wa s sitti ng in shop class (at a pproxi mately

1:45 p.m.) wh e n he saw the De fe nd ant ba c k h is c ar i nto a sp a c e in t he pa rk inglot by the a thl e tic field house. The testimony at trial showed that Creson was a football play er, a

nd

ever y day for the pa st three y ear s, he had g one to t h e fi el d house at 2:00 p.m. for seventh pe riod prac tice. As the bell rang at 2: 00 p.m. for seventh period, Nic k Creson walked towa

rd the fie ld house. Be cause classes w ere chang ing, the re w ere approxi m at el y

1 0 0 -1 5 0 o t h er

s tu d en t s i nt h e a re a s u rr o u n d i n g C re s o n , i n cluding Br ad Schrimsher, who w as standing direc tly behind Creson. Cassandr a Sharp te stified that as she wa s wa l k i n g to meet Creson (it wa s their custom to walk to seventh pe riod tog e the r) , she saw the De fe nd ant ste p out of his c ar, ra ise a ri fl e to his c he st, po int it

a t Cr e so n a

nd fi re a sh ot f ro m a dis tanc e of a

pp ro xima te ly 30 to 40 fe e t. C re so n f e ll to his knees, holding his books up as a shield and pleading with the Defe ndant to stop shooting. The Def

endant moved c loser and f ired a second shot, which ca used Creson to fall on his back. De fenda nt continued to approa ch and f ired the third a

nd final shot down into Creson' s chest. After this fina l shot, the D efe ndant place d the g un down

an d s a td o w no nt h e g r o u n d

n e ar C r e s o n ' s b o dy.

There afte r, the police arr ived and a rre sted Def

endant. De t ective Bill Wood of the Fa y etteville Police Depa

rtment testified that he retrieve d a box of live ammunition-5-

from the f ront seat of the Def

endant' s car , along with a letter wr itten by the Def endant

and a dd re sse d to " F ri e nd s, F a mil y , T on y a and a ll. " Th e le tte r s ta te d:

Isu pp os e whe n any on e re a ds thi s, Iwi ll b e c on sid e re d me nta lly insane. Those who re ally

know me will confirm this is not the truth. No t by my sta

nd ard s. I have a lw ay s be lie ve d s inc e Iwa s sm a ll that I do se e the wo rl d thr ou g h a tot a lly un iqu e se t of

e y e s. Ho we ve r t

his is

n o tt h e p o i n th er e. I d o n 't kn o w wh at wi l l h ap p en t o m e th i s ev en i n g. I g uess this will be g oodby e should something ha ppen to my self and Iam not able to spea

k to those near est to me.

Detec tive W o o d was a lso give n the murder wea pon, a Mar lin .22 caliber ma g num ri fl e, wh i ch h adb ee nre co v er edb y R i ck y By ra n t , a t ea ch er

at L i n co l nC o u n t y

Hi gh Sc ho ol. W oo d fur

the r t e sti fi e d th a t th e De fe nd ant f ull y c omp lie d w itha ll o f h is instructions and that Def

endant seeme d to understand e very thing that wa s asked of him

.
Th e De fe nd ant pr e se nte d pro of fr om se ve ra l witn e sse s, wh o te sti fi e d r e g ard inghis behavior prior to the start of

his senior y ear and after he beg an dating Tony a B ishop. Phylli s D a vi s , D e f

e n d a nt ' s m oth e r, te sti fi e d th a t on on e oc c a sio n, the De fe nd ant c a me h o m e n e r v o u s an d

cry i n g b ec au s e h e h add i s co v er edt h at T o n y a w as s t i l l h av i n g a relationship wit h the victim. Mrs. Davis stat ed t h at s h e noticed c uts on the De fe nd ant' s w ri sts , a

nd the De fe nd ant state d that he wa s a t th e po int of su ic ide . M rs

. Davi s e xp la in e d th a t s h e an d h e r h u s b an d w e r e a b le to c a lm th e D e f

e n d an t. She further testified that prior to his senior y ear , the Def endant was a g ifted straig ht "A" student, active in his school, about to become an Ea g le Scout and excited about g oing to colleg e at Mi s sissippi State. Mrs. Davis told the jury that, afte r the De fenda

nt beg an datingTony a, he sta y ed out late into the nig ht, his gra des droppe d dr a ma tic a lly , h e ba

re ly sle pt a nd wa s le tha rg ic a ll o f t

he tim e . Mrs . Davis state d th a t, in t he tw o d ay s le a din g up to thi s tr a g e dy
, the De fe nd ant a pp e are d h a

pp y and no rm a l. She further

told the jury that her husband kept about four guns in the house, including the .22 rifle use d in this case

. She testified that her husband kept the .22 loaded. She

a lso state d th a t th e De fe nd ant h a d s ho t th e se g un s p ri or to t his sh oo tin g inc ide nt.

The De fe n dant pre sented a dditional testim ony from Aletha

L ewter , Susan Holder, Am y M o y er s an d

T er es a E v an s , wh o ea ch t es t i fi ed as t o t h e c h an ges i nDe fe n d an t 's behavior and attit ude after the start of his senior y ear and the dating of

Tony a B ishop. F u rt h e r , a tt r i a l
, t h e r e w a s n o i s s u e a s t o w h e t h e r t h e D e f e n d an ts h o tN i c k

C r e s o n

. In fac t, the only contested issue at trial was De fenda nt's me ntal state at the time of the offe nses. On this point, the jury also hea rd testimony from one psy cholog ist and two ps y c hiatr ist s.-6-

Dr. Willi am D. Ke nner, a specia list i n child and adolesc ent psy chiatry , testified on behalf of the De fenda

nt. Dr. Ke nner te stified that he interviewe d the appe llant and

re vie we d nume ro us re c or ds c on c e rn ingthe De fe nd ant, inc lud ing a repor t f ro m a neuropsycholog ist, Dr. P am Auble. He concur red in Dr . Auble' s conclusion that Def endant wa s suffer ing f

rom a seve re depressive disorde r. Specific ally , he opined that the Def

endant wa s suffer ing f

rom "m aj o r depr ession, sever e, with mood cong ruent psy chotic feature s." The doctor fur ther e x plained that the De fenda nt had a " g enetic pr edisposition" for de pression and me ntal illness, given th at h i s father
, pater nal gra ndmother, hi s materna l g randmother and his aunt, s uffe red f rom sever e depre ssion and wer e hospi talized at some point for their me ntal illnesses. Dr Ke nner
e xpla ine d:

[I ]t is important to re co gn i z e that while--for a wee k befor e the shooting, Jacob had be g un to hear voices, a nd these wer e voice s that

wer e talking to him in whis pers. He thought it was somebody outside of him . A nd

the vo ic e s w e re sa

y ingde ro g a tor

y thi ng s to him

.
* * *

[I n] J acob' s case , he couldn' t hear exactly what they wer e saying, but they wer e saying bad t hings a

bout him. Occasiona lly

they would say his name. And whe n he wa s al o n e an d there was no possibility of any body , y ou know, ac tually whispering , then he- -it rea lly scar ed him.

And as these events b ega n t o unfold, the voice s would be loud at

so me tim e s and

mor e ur g e nt a

nd angry and so fo rt

h, and le ss s o in others. And they wer e particula rly intense whe n he wa s at Wal-Mart and that wa s h ap p ening . And then they quieted down some. The y started coming back very

loudly afte r the pe nny

incident and so for

th.

Dr . K e nn e r f

ur the r n ote d th a t th e De fe nd ant w a s e xpe ri e nc ing , " wh a t' s in va ri a bly

c a lle d e mot ion a l hi g h-

ja c kin g , in wh ic h an ind ivi du a l is take n o ve r b y his e mot ion s" and also a uditory hallucinations. Dr. Kenner opined that Def endant "wa s alre ady

out of touch with re ality

befor e th[e] i ncident at Wal- Mar t came up."
Finally , Dr. Ke nner opine d that Def endant' s capa city

to premeditatedly

and intentio n al l y

s h o o tC re s o n"w as s ev er el y , v ery s ev er el y i mp ai re d

. " Moreover , Kenne r op ine d th a t me nta l c a

pa c ity :

is never- -I

think it is ne ver totally

exti ng uished in any one, but I think [J acob] was ope rating on automatic. He wa s sever ely impaired at that time.-7- * * *

And furthe r diffic ulty

in--with re flec ting a

nd deliberating c o me s from the fa ct t h at h e wa s psy chotic. He had diffic ulty distinguishing betwee n what we re his thoug hts and what we re e x ter n al sensory input, so that he hear d t h es e v o ices like a s if someone we re wh isp e ri ngto h im o r a

bo ut h im. B ut t

he se we re re a lly

his tho ug hts

. So that g ra sp on re a lity

ha d r e a lly

sli pp e d f ro m hi m. A nd

so that, ag ain, has very sever e conseque nces w hen it comes to trying to think logic ally , beca

use it, ag ain, is l i k e t h i nking in a drea m. You know, y ou jus t c an' t put th ing s to g e the r l ike t hey ou g ht t o b e . A nd

tha t is how someone like Jacob Davis would be functioning at that time.

I n r e bu tta l, t

he State pr e se nte d th e te sti mony of Dr

. Sa m Cr a dd oc k, a ps y c ho log ist

e mpl oy e d b y the F or e ns ic Se rv ic e s D ivi sio n o f t he Mid dle Te nn e sse e Me nta l H e a lth I nstitut e. Ac cordingto Dr. Craddock
, t h e Defenda nt was admitted under

the ins tit ute ' s 3 0- da

y in- patie nt e va luatio n pr oc e dure and wa s e va luate d b y

the ins tit ute fo r a pp ro xima te ly

tw e nty -s e ve n ( 27 ) d ay s ( Ap ri l 20 to May 17 , 199 9) . On the ba sis of thi s e va luatio n a

nd the soci al hi sto ry

c omp ile d b y

Re be c c a Smith, a ps y c hiatr ic social worke r employ ed by the For ensic S ervic es Divi sion, Dr. Cra ddock opined the that th e De fe nd ant:

wa s e xpe ri e nc inga de pr e ssi ve dis or de r at the tim e . Wa s n ot s e ve re to wher e I considere d him to be psy chotic or out of touch with rea lity

or unable to ac curately

perc eive r eality

. Nor to an e x tent that he wa s unable to for

m an intent.

He c oncede d that he had dif ficulty in rende ring an op inion, since the team at the instit ute did not see the D efe ndant until eleven ( 11) months after the shooting incident. Dr. Cra ddock also opined that any auditory hallucinations experience d by the Def endant we re due to "se lf-imposed" or " voluntary " s l eep- deprivation. He conclude d that, at the time of the murder
, De fe ndant was c apable of for ming the requisite intent for pr emeditated f irst deg ree murder.
Dr. Rokey a F arooque , a psy ch i at ri st employ ed by the For ensic Servic es Division,

c on c ur re d in Dr . Cr a dd oc k' s o pin ion that D e fe nd ant w a s su ff e ri ngfr om s ome

" de pr e ssi ve dis or de r no t oth e rw ise sp e c if ie d. " Dr . F arr oq

ue op ine d th a t ' a t th e tim e of the incide nt [ Def

endant] was not sufferi n g from any kind of mental disease or defe ct that is g oing to make him incapable of forming intent." More over, she reje cted Dr. Auble ' s and Dr. K enner ' s diag noses that Def endant wa s suffer ing f

rom " major depre ssi o n

c ong ruent with psy chotic fe ature s" a nd that Def

endant wa s suffer ing f

rom auditory hallucinations. Dr. Farr oque ex plained that interviews with De fenda nt and his fr ie nd s and fa

mil y re fl e c te d that a t tim e s the De fe nd ant wa s sa d and of ten felt-8-

b ad
, p ar t i cu l ar l y

s i n ce h e w as i nj ai l fa ci n g s u ch s er i o u s ch ar ges

. Du e t o De fe n d an t 's dep r e s s iv e f

e e li n g s , s h e d ia g n o s e d h im a s h av in g s o me " d e p r e s s iv e d is o r d e r not otherwise spe cified." She fu rt h er ex plained that her interviews a

nd testing of

the Def endant r evea led t hat t he Defenda nt only complained once about hearingsomeone
c a lli nghis name or wh isp e ri ng to him , whi c h she did no t be lie ve wa s c on sis te nt w ith hallucinations (i.e., " ... when [people] hear voices a n d t h e v o ices talk with them continuously

or torment them, talk amongthemselves; ar g ue amongthemselves." ).

Da v is , 2001 WL 487688, *1-6.

On a pp e a l, P e tit ion e r c ha lle ng e d th e su ff ic ie nc y of the c on vic tin g e vid e nc e fo r ea c h of h is

c on vic tio ns and argue d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in fa ili ngto s tr ike six po te nti a l juro rs fo r c a us e . T his Court found the evide nce suf ficient to support eac h of Petitioner’s convictions. Althoug h Petitioner waived the issue conce rning jury selec tion at the hear ing o n h i s m o t i o n for a new tria l, this C ourt nonetheless c oncluded that the trial court properly qualified the six potential jurors. Also, five of the six wer e re moved by

use of pe remptory

challeng es. Id., at *9. The Suprem e C ourt denied Petitioner’s Tenne ssee Rule of Appellate Procedur e 11 application for per mission t o appea l on October 8, 2001.

II. P os t- Co nvi c ti on H e ar ing

Petitioner testified that he wa s twenty y ear s old at the time of his trial and def err ed to his trial counsel, Ray

mond W. Fraley , J r. and Richa rd McGe e, on all matter s conce rning leg al strateg y . He did not disag ree that Mr. Fraley and Mr. McGe e spent countless hours prepa ring for the tr ial and that the y inv e s ti g a te d an d p r e p ar e d th e w it n e s s e s “ e xc e p ti o n a ll y w e ll

. ” A lt h o u g h h e u n d e rstood the dif fe re nc e be tw e e n th e po te nti a l se nte nc e s f or se c on d d e g re e and

fi rs t de g re e mur de r, Pe tit ion e r s a id that he wa s not advised that there was a substantial risk that he would be convic ted of fir st deg ree murder. Petitioner said that he wa s not involved in the plea neg otiations although he understood that the State had of

fer ed to re duce the char g es to second deg ree murder w ith a rec ommended sente nce of thirty to thirty -five y ear s. I f he ha d been a dequate ly appriz ed o f t h e seriousness of his case
, Petitioner said that he would have acc epted the State’ s plea off er.

Petitioner said that he under stood the importance of the selec tion of a jury and was awa re that the Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls h a d a dd re sse d th e iss ue s su

rr ound ingthe impanelm e nt o f c e rt a in jur or s o n a

pp e a l.

Petitioner said that he and his tria l c ounsel discussed his rig ht to testify for “ a minute or less.” Essentially , Mr. Fr aley

and Mr. Mc Gee advised him not to testify
, and he ag ree d with their advice

. Petitioner indicated, howe ver, that he felt he should ha ve testified at trial in order to personalize the mental problems he w as suffering at the time rather than r elying only on the testimony

of ps y c hiatr ist s. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Pe tit ion e r c on c e de d that se ve ra l lay wi tne sse s, inc lud inghis mot he r a nd his g ir lf ri e nd , te sti fi e d a s to his state of min d at th e tim e of

the inc ide nt.-9-

Mr. Fr aley

has bee n a pra cticing attorney for thir t y y ea rs. He de scribed the environment surrounding Petitioner’s trial as “ difficult” due to the g ener al emotional outcry following the school shooting at Colum bine Hig h School in Col orad o

. Mr. Fr aley said that eve n though Petitioner’ s defe nse t hat he was incapable of forming preme ditation did not work, he would not have pr esente d

any oth e r d e fe ns e . M r. F ra le y fe lt that Pe tit ion e r’ s me nta l st a te wa s th e on ly e xplan ati on for his

a c tio ns

.

Mr . F ra le y

a g re e d th a t th e se le c ti on of the jur y wa s a c ri tic a l c omp on e nt o f t he tr ia l. Although he thought some of the j urors should have been removed for cause , Mr. Fr aley believed that the jurors e ventually

selec ted wer e “a s g ood as we wer e g oing to g et.”

Mr. Fr aley

s ai d that he discussed the potential sentenc es for first deg ree murder a

nd the lesser- included off

enses of second de g ree murder a

nd manslaug hter with Petitioner. Mr. Fr aley , not the State, was the one who f irst br oug ht up the possibili ty of settling Petitioner’ s case . Mr. Fr aley

sa id t hat he a sk e d th e Sta

te to c on sid e r r e du c ingthe c ha rg e a g a ins t Pe tit ion e r t o ma ns la ug hte r w ith

a se nte nc e be y on d th e statut or y ra ng e a t thi rt

y to thi rt y -f ive y e ars

. Th e State tol d Mr

. F ra le y no t to be “r idiculous.” The State infor med Mr. F rale y

that the vi ctim’s mother di d not want any sentenc e less than life imprisonment if Petitioner were convicted. Mr . Fr aley said that more stre nuous plea neg otiations were not attempted beca use the State wa s not willi ng to neg otiate.

Mr. McGe e has prac ticed in the are a of criminal law f or twenty -five y ear s and par ticipated i n o v er one hundre d jury trials. He joined the de fense team ar ound the date of Petitioner’s pr e lim ina ry he ari ng . M r. Mc Ge e re c a lle d th a t c e rt a in j ur or s sa id d urin g v oi r dir e that th e y

wo uld not be abl e t o consider e vidence of Petitioner’s mental state at the time of the of fense to neg ate a finding of pre meditation. Mr. McGe e believe d that th e d ef en se did not challeng e the se lection of

on e of the jur or s f

ro m th is g ro up be c a

us e he and Mr . Fr a le y

fe are d th a t so me on e e ve n le ss f a vo ra bly inclined to their theory

of def ense mig ht have be en s el ec t ed. Mr. Mc Gee said that the trial cour t allowed Mr. Mc Gee an d M r. Fr al ey to ask the potential jurors a ll the questions they felt we re appropr iate.

Mr. McGe e said that he asked Mr . Fr aley if there was a

ny opportunity

to settle Petiti oner’ s
case , and Mr. F rale y

told him that the State had re jected his sug g ested sente nce of thirty to thirty -five y ear s. Mr. McGe e discussed settlement ag ain with the State during jury selec tion, but his overture s
wer e re buffe d.

Mr. McGe e advise d Petitioner not to testify beca use he f elt they had suff iciently portray ed Petitioner’s side of the e vents sur r o u n d in g th e s h o o ti n g throug h the def ense’ s witnesses. Discussions

conc ern i n g P et i t i o n er ’s ri gh tt o t es t i fy we re co n d

u ct edd u ri n g t h e p re s en t at i o no f t h e d ef en s e’ s p roof. Mr. McGe e neve r alter ed his advice , and Petitioner neve r told him that he wanted to testify . I nstead, P e t i t i o n e r a c c e p t e d M r

. M c G e e ’ s r e c o m m e n d a t i o nt h a th e n o tt e s t i f y.

At the conclusion of t he evidentiary hear ing, the trial court c oncluded that Petitioner fa iled to show that trial counsel provided ineffe ctive assist ance during the j ury selec tion process. As noted-10-

on direc t appea l, Petiti oner’ s trial counsel re moved five of t h e s i x potential jurors by use of pe rem pt ory c ha lle ng e s. B e c a us e thi s Co ur

t ha d a lr e a dy

c on c lud e d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt pr op e rl y qu a lif ie d th e six juro rs a t iss ue , the po st- c on vic tio n c ourt fo un d th a t Pe tit ion e r f a ile d to de mon str a te that he was prejudice d by

any alleg ed def

iciency in counsel’s pe rfor

mance during voir dire. The trial

c ourt a lso fo un d that th ere wa s n o p le a a g re e me nt i n e xiste nc e that c ou ld b e c omm un ic a te d to Petitioner. Finally , the trial cour t concluded that Petiti oner voluntar ily and knowin gl y agr eed not to testify at t rial. The trial court specifica lly acc redited the testimony of Mr. Frale y and Mr. Mc Gee

c o n c e r n i n g t h e p l e a

n e g o t i a t i o n s an d

t h e d i s c u s s i o n s c o n c e r

n i n g P e t i t i o n e r ’ s r i g h tt o t e s t i f y.

II. Stand ard of Review

I n order to prevai l o n a cla im of ineffe ctiveness of counsel, a

petitioner must establish by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the c onduct of pe t i t i o n er ’s counsel fe ll below “the r ang e of competenc e dema

nded of attorney s in criminal cases”, and that petitioner wa s adver sely aff ecte d by counsel’s de ficient pe rfor mance

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 693, 104 S.C t. 2052, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1974); Baxter v . Rose, 52 3 S. W.2 d 9 30 , 9 36 (Ten n. 19 75 ). I n o rd e r t o e sta bli sh prejudice , the petitioner must show that there i s a rea sonable possibility that the outcome of

the proce eding s would have been differe nt but for the ineffe ctive assist ance of counse l. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct . at 2 0 6 8

. Beca use the pe titioner must establish both deficient conduc t and p r e ju d ic e , r e li e f w il l b e d e n ie d if p e ti ti o n e r f a il s to p r o v e e it

h e r c o mponent. Goa d v . S tat e , 938 S.W .2d 363, 370 (Tenn. 1996)

.

I n r e vie wi ngc ouns e l’ s pe rf or manc e , the dis tor

tio ns of hin ds ig ht m

us t be a vo ide d, and

thi s Court will not s econd- g uess counse l’s decisions re gar d i n g trial strateg ies and tac tics. Hellard v. State, 62 9 S .W.2d 4, 9 (T e nn

. 19 82 ). Th e re vie wi ng c ourt , the re fo re , sh ou ld no t c on c lud e that a pa rt ic ula r a c t or omi ssi on by c ouns e l is un re a so na

ble me re ly

be c a us e the str a te g y

wa s uns uc c e ssf

ul. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct . at 2065. Rather, counsel’s alleg ed er rors should be judg ed from counse l’s perspe ctive at the point of time they wer e made in l i gh t of all the fa cts and circ umstances at that time. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S. Ct . at 2066.
The post-c onviction court’s finding s of fa ct under ly ing a claim of inef

fec tive assistance of counsel a re r eviewe d de no v o wi t h a presumption that the findings ar e cor rec t unless the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e establi s h es o t h er wise. Fi e lds v . S tat e , 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001). In addition, questions concer ning the cre dibilit y

of witnesses and the weight and value g iven their testimony

are resolved by

the trial court, and not this Court. State v. Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). Howeve r, the application of the law to the court’s fac tual finding s, such as whe ther

c ouns e l’ s c on du c t w a s d e fi c ie nt or wh e the r the pe tit ion e r wa s pre jud ic e d, is re vie we d de no vo wi th no presumption of cor

rec tness. Id.

III. Selection of Ju rors

Mr. Fr aley

and Mr. Mc Gee prese nted a hy pothetical situation to the potential jurors during voir dire. The panel wa s told that Petitioner left t he school’s premises, went home a nd retrie ved a-11-

g un, then re turned to sc hool w here he shot a nd killed the victim, Nic holas Creson. The jurors we re then asked whether they could consider evidenc e as to Petitioner’s diminis hed capac ity to neg ate a finding of preme ditation. Ba sed on this limited fac tual situation, certain juror s said they could not

c on sid e r P e tit ion e r’ s me nta l st a te a t th e tim e of the sh oo tin g in m iti g a tio n o f h is a c tio ns

.
Petitioner’s trial counse l moved to strike t his g roup of jurors for cause arguing that they

had fo rm e d a n o pin ion a bo ut t he c a se wh ic h w a s n ot s ubjec t to chan ge. Th e State ob je c te d b e c a

us e de fe ns e c ouns e l f

a ile d to a sk

the jur or s if

the y c ou ld f oll owthe law a s in str

uc te d b y the tr ia l c ourt

. The trial court then reopened voir dire and questioned each of the pot ential j urors who had expressed

re se rv a tio ns of c on sid e ri ng pr oo f of Pe tit ion e r’ s me nta l st a te , s pe c if ic a lly ins tr uc tin g e a c h ju

ro r t o disreg ard the hy

pothetical situation descr ibed by defe nse co unsel. The tria l court over ruled Petitioner’s cha lleng e for cause as to those jurors who unequivoca lly stated that they could consider

e vid e nc e c on c e rn ingPe ti ti on er’s me nta l st a te and re qu ir e the State to p ro ve be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t Pe tit ion e r w a s g uil ty . T he tr ia l c ourt e xcu se d th os e jur or s f

or c a us e wh o con ti nu e d to maintain a preconc eived opinion as to Petitioner’s g uilt. Out of the first g roup, def ense c ounsel used pe re mpt or

y c ha lle ng e s to re mov e fi ve of the six juro rs

.

Pe tit ioner argue s th a t hi s tr ia l c ouns e l’ s c on du c t du ri ngvo ir dir e wa s d e fi c ie nt b e c a

us e
c ouns e l, n ot t

he tr ia l c ourt , s ho uld

have qu e sti on e d e a c h p ote nti a l juro r a s to his or h e r a bil ity to consider the evidenc e presented in court. The post-conviction court found that the a pproac h taken by Mr. McGe e and Mr . Fr aley during voir dire wa s a “le g itimate trial strateg y .” Our revie w of the

rec ord supports the post-convic tion court’s finding that counsel’s pe rfor mance in this reg ard w as well within the rang e of c ompetence demande d of attorne y s in criminal case s. See B axter , 523 S.W .2d at 936. Fur

thermore
, Petitioner has not shown that there is a rea sonable proba bility that the result of his trial would have been differ ent i f hi s counsel had conducte d voir dire diff ere ntly

. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct . at 2068. Def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

I V

. R ig htt o Te s t if

y

Petitioner argues that his c ounsel’s perf ormanc e was defic ient beca use Mr. McGe e and Mr

. Fr aley only discussed Petitioner’s r i gh t t o testify with him for less than a minute. Petitioner acknow ledg es that counse l a dvised him that he had the r ight to testify . Petitioner contends, howe ver, that he de fe rr e d to his c ouns e l’ s r e c omm e nd a tio n th a t he no t take the sta nd e ve n thou g h h e a c tua lly

w an t e d t o t e s t i f y. M r

. M c G e e t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e e x p l a i n e d

t o P e t i t i o n e r

t h a th e h a d

a r i g h tt o t e s t i f

y,
and the y dis c us se d w he the r or no t P eti tio ne r w ou ld t a ke the sta nd thr ou g ho ut t

he tr ia l. D e fe ns e counsel fel t t h at Petitioner’s side of the inc ident had bee n sufficie ntly portray ed throug h the de fe ns e ’s wi tne sse s, and

c ouns e l a dv ise d Pe tit ion e r n ot to take the sta nd in o rd e r t o avo id c ro ssexamination. Mr. McGee said that Petitioner acc epted his re commendation and ne ver indicated that h e w an t e d

t o t e s t i f y.
The post-c onviction court ac cr ed i t ed the testimony of Mr. McG ee a

nd Mr. Fr aley

and conclude d that Petitioner knowing ly and volunt arily waived his rig ht to testify

. The trial c ourt had the opportun i t y t o view the de meanor of the witnesse s at the post-convic tion hearing . Questions-12-

conce rning the credibility of wit nesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are resolved by

the post-conviction cour

t, not this Court. Burns , 6 S.W .3d at 461. The e vidence does not preponde rate ag ainst the post-conviction co u rt’s finding that Petitioner made a n informed decision conc erninghis right to testify . Petitioner is not entitl ed to re lief on this issue.

V. F ailure to P rese rve Jury Issues for Appeal
Although he offe rs no argument, Petitioner alleg es that his tria l c ounsel wer e inef fec tive for failing to preser

ve the issues c oncer

ning the selec tio n of the jury for a ppeal. Whether

or not counsel’s de cision to withdraw these issues at Petiti o n er ’s motion for a new trial was de ficient repr esentation, this Cour t n onetheless a ddresse d the jury selec tion process in Petitioner’s dire ct

a pp e a l and fo un d n o e rr or

on the pa rt of the tr ia l c ourt

in i ts q ua lif ic a tio n o f t

he qu e sti on e d ju

ro rs

. Petitioner has fa iled to show that he wa s prejudice d by the conduct of his c ounsel in this reg ard or that the re sults of his a

ppeal would have been any differ ent if the issue had bee n prese nted for r eview during the motion for a ne w trial. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct . at 2068.

VI . P le a N e go ti at ion s

A t t h e p o s t- c o n v ic ti o nh e ar in g , Pe ti ti o n e r ar g u e d th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s d e f ic ie n t f or failing to r elay information to him concer ning the State’s offe r to settle his case . The post-c onviction court found that there w as no plea ag ree ment to communicate to Petiti oner. O n appea l, Petiti oner
no w a rgue s t hat hi s tr ia l c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l be c a

us e the y fa ile d to pur s u e m e an i n g f

u l p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n s

. P e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t p r e s e n t t h i s g r o u n d f o r r e l i e f t o the po stconviction cour

t, and this issue is accor dingly waived. T enn. R. App. P. 36(a)

. Notwithstanding w aiver , Petitioner has not shown that he wa s p re j u d i ced by

the fa ilure of his c ouns e l to c on tin

ue to pur su e an off

e r of se ttl e me nt wh e n th e re c or d c le arl y sh ow s th a t th e State

wa s n ot w ill ingto e nte r i nto ple a neg oti a tio ns . Wh e the r o r n ot t o e nte r i nto ple a ne g oti a tio ns is a matter lef t entirely to the district attorney

g ener al’s d i s cretion. State v. He ad , 971 S.W .2d 49, 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) . Petitioner is not entitl ed to re lief on this issue.

CO NC LU SION

Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f t

he re c or d, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he po st- c on vic tio n c ourt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE