IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs May 10, 2016 

RANDALL COLEMAN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2011-B-1027 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge

No. M2015-01174-CCA-R3-PC – Filed January 10, 2017

The Petitioner, Randall Coleman, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court‟s denial 

of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of one count of rape of a 

child and five counts of aggravated sexual battery and resulting effective sentence of 

fifty-five years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective 

assistance of counsel at trial. Based upon the record and the parties‟ briefs, we affirm the 

judgment of the post-conviction court.

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

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Elaine Heard, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Randall Coleman. 

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Senior 

Counsel; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Chad Butler, Assistant District 

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. Factual Background

In April 2011, the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Petitioner for one 

count of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and five counts of aggravated sexual battery, a 

Class B felony, for incidents that occurred between April 28, 2005, and February 14, 

2007. The victim of the alleged crimes was J.R.,1 who was born on April 28, 1997.

 

1

It is the policy of this court to refer to minor victims of sexual crimes by their initials.
- 2 -

The following relevant facts underlying the Petitioner‟s convictions, as stated in 

this court‟s direct appeal opinion, are as follows: 

J.R. testified that she was . . . fourteen years old at the time of the trial. She 

said that she lived with her mother and that her brothers and sisters lived 

with their father. J.R. recalled that she often spent time at her 

grandmother‟s house, whom she referred to as “Granny.” Her granny‟s 

given name was Charmaine Rowan. J.R. said that, at the time of these 

incidents, Rowan lived in a large, three-bedroom apartment in the Spring 

Branch apartment complex with the Defendant, whom she called Pawpaw, 

and their two children, Kevin Coleman and Keisha Coleman. J.R. testified 

that the Defendant was like a grandfather to her.

While the Defendant and her granny lived at the Spring Branch 

apartment, J.R. visited the Defendant and Rowan frequently, as the 

apartment was close to J.R.‟s school. On one occasion when she was at the 

apartment, she was on an air mattress between Kevin Coleman and the 

Defendant. Kevin Coleman kept scooting “his butt” back, in a playful 

manner, causing J.R. to scoot back also. She recalled that, as she was 

scooting back, the Defendant moved toward her. When the Defendant 

moved toward her, his “private part” touched her buttocks. Upon contact 

with the Defendant‟s body, the victim scooted away from the Defendant 

and back toward Kevin Coleman.

J.R. testified that, on another occasion, she was in Rowan‟s room 

asleep in the bed when the Defendant came into the room and pulled down 

her clothing. He then pulled down his own clothing, and put his “private 

part on [her] private part.” J.R. said that, while her legs were spread apart, 

the Defendant touched his penis to the area where she “pee[d].” She 

described the Defendant as “going up and down.” J.R. recalled that Rowan 

came in the main door to the apartment, so the Defendant pulled up his 

pants, and she pulled up her own pants.

J.R. testified about another incident when she was in Rowan‟s room, 

and the Defendant pulled his pants down. He told her to “touch it,” and he 

grabbed her hand. He assisted her in “going up and down” on his penis. 

J.R. testified that nothing came out of his penis on this occasion.

J.R. testified about another incident that occurred while the 

Defendant lived at the Spring Branch apartment. She said that she was in 

Kevin Coleman‟s room. J.R. said she knew that something happened while 
- 3 -

she was in that room, but she did not want to go into detail because she did 

not remember it clearly. J.R. said that there were other incidents that 

happened, but she did not remember them specifically.

J.R. said that the Defendant told her not to tell anyone “what [they 

had] been doing because,” he said, “pawpaw can get in real big trouble.”

J.R. recalled that, when she was ten or eleven years old, Rowan and 

the Defendant moved into a different apartment in “Hallmark at the Park.” 

This apartment had two bedrooms, and the couple lived there with three 

children, including Kevin and Keisha Coleman. J.R. said that Keisha 

Coleman did not have her own room and stayed in the same room with the 

Defendant and Rowan.

J.R. testified that, on one occasion while the Defendant and Rowan 

lived at “Hallmark,” the Defendant told Keisha Coleman to go and wash 

the dishes. After doing so, the Defendant pulled down his pants, pulled 

down J.R.‟s pants, and pulled J.R. on top of him. J.R. said the Defendant 

put “his private part where [she] peed” and started moving up and down. 

J.R. said that she then got off of him.

J.R. testified about another incident at the Hallmark apartments. She 

said that she was alone in the apartment with the Defendant. She recalled 

that the Defendant pulled her pants down, pulled his pants down, and 

opened her legs, spreading them apart. He then put his “private part on 

[her] private part.” The Defendant was “going up and down,” until J.R. 

told him that she needed to go to the bathroom.

J.R. said that, while the Defendant and Rowan lived at the Hallmark 

apartment, J.R. told Keisha Coleman about the Defendant‟s sexual conduct 

toward her. J.R. asked Keisha Coleman to tell her mother. To J.R.‟s 

knowledge, Keisha Coleman did not respond to J.R.‟s request and did not 

tell J.R.‟s mother.

J.R. said that, when she was approximately eleven or twelve, Rowan 

and the Defendant moved to a duplex in the Westchester area (“Tuckahoe

Square”). This was a three-bedroom home. When J.R. was visiting the 

Defendant and Rowan at the Tuckahoe Square duplex, the Defendant was 

in the room with J.R. He pulled down his pants and told J.R. to “touch it.” 

He then grabbed her hand with his hand and assisted her in rubbing her 

hand up and down his penis. J.R. said she believed that something came 
- 4 -

out of the Defendant‟s penis on this occasion.

J.R. testified that, on another occasion, she was in the living room of 

the Tuckahoe Square duplex with Rowan and the Defendant. The 

Defendant told Rowan to go in her room, and Rowan complied with his 

request. The Defendant then pulled J.R.‟s pants down and spread her legs 

apart. He then put his tongue in her private area and started licking her. 

The Defendant then put his private in that same place, and he “nutted in 

[her].” J.R. described the term “nutted,” a phrase she said she learned in 

school, as meaning that “something” came out of the Defendant‟s penis 

onto the victim‟s vagina. J.R. said that after the Defendant finished, she 

went to the bathroom to wipe herself off and then went to Keisha 

Coleman‟s room to lay down.

J.R. said that, at some point, her mother asked her if anyone was 

touching her. J.R. did not respond, which indicated to her mother that J.R. 

was, in fact, being inappropriately touched. J.R.‟s mother inquired further, 

and J.R. told her about the interactions with the Defendant. J.R. said her 

mother called the police.

J.R. said that she then went to the Child Advocacy Center, and a 

woman named “Latoya” interviewed her. She also underwent a medical 

exam at the clinic. After speaking with a police detective, J.R. agreed to 

have a telephone conversation with the Defendant while police officers 

taped the conversation.

. . . .

Keisha Coleman, the daughter of the Defendant and Rowan, testified 

that, while J.R. was her niece, the two were more like sisters and had been 

close most of their lives. She said that, until 2010, she lived with the 

Defendant and Rowan. Keisha recalled a time while living at the Hallmark 

apartment when J.R. told her that the Defendant had touched J.R. 

inappropriately. Keisha said that she never told anyone about J.R.‟s 

statements until police contacted her about these allegations. When police 

asked her about the allegations, however, she told them that J.R. had 

previously disclosed this information to her. Keisha testified that she never 

noticed the Defendant being mean to J.R. and that the two seemed to get 

along fairly well.

During cross-examination, Keisha testified that J.R. usually slept in 
- 5 -

bed with her when she spent the night at their home. She said that she and 

J.R. liked to “play tricks” on the Defendant, like waiting until he was asleep 

and putting tissue in his ears or running away from him. Keisha said that, 

even after J.R. told her about the touching, J.R. continued to sleep over. 

She said that she never saw anything inappropriate occur between the 

Defendant and J.R. while J.R. was at her home. She further testified that 

the Defendant had never touched her in an inappropriate manner.

During redirect examination, Keisha testified that there were times 

when the Defendant was alone on the bed with J.R. while the two watched 

television. She also said that J.R. had never accused anyone else of 

touching her inappropriately.

. . . .

[Detective Edmond Strickling] testified that, when investigating 

J.R.‟s case, he first tried to corroborate her statements. Detective Strickling 

verified that the Defendant and Rowan had lived in the three places 

mentioned by J.R. He also attempted a “controlled phone call” where J.R. 

called the Defendant. The Defendant did not make any admissions during 

this telephone conversation, which the State played for the jury.

Detective Strickling testified that J.R. told him that she had told 

Keisha Coleman about the abuse. The detective located Keisha at school 

and interviewed her. Keisha corroborated J.R.‟s account of the 

conversation. The detective testified that he interviewed the Defendant 

about J.R.‟s allegations. The Defendant and the detective met at a WalMart parking lot, and they sat together in the front seat of the detective‟s 

car. The detective told the Defendant he was not under arrest and that he 

was trying to get the Defendant‟s side of the story. The detective recorded 

his conversation with the Defendant. In the recording, the Defendant 

denied the allegations and agreed to submit to a DNA test.

Detective Strickling testified he contacted Rowan, who said she did 

not want to get involved in the case.

During cross-examination, Detective Strickling confirmed that the 

Defendant repeatedly denied sexually abusing J.R. during the controlled 

phone call. He further said that, during his interview in the car with the 

Defendant, he told the Defendant that J.R. had undergone a medical 

examination and that some DNA may have been recovered. The detective 
- 6 -

said the Defendant became “apprehensive” and inquired about what 

evidence police had found. The Defendant then provided the detective with 

a DNA sample. During this conversation, the Defendant never changed his 

denial of any sexual contact with J.R. During redirect examination, the 

detective stated that, while the Defendant repeatedly denied J.R.‟s 

allegations, there were some inconsistencies and problems with his story.

Rowan, J.R.‟s grandmother . . . , testified that she had two children 

with the Defendant, Keisha and Kevin Coleman. She said she and the 

Defendant had lived together for twenty-five years, moving on several 

occasions. Throughout J.R.‟s childhood, J.R. spent a fair amount of time at 

her home. She said that there were times that the Defendant was home 

alone with J.R., whom J.R. called “Pawpaw.”

Rowan testified that she learned about J.R.‟s allegations when 

Keisha came home from school one day and said that police officers had 

asked her questions about J.R. and the Defendant. Rowan said, upon 

hearing this, she was angry and cried. She asked the Defendant “why,” and 

the Defendant denied the allegations. Rowan said she asked the Defendant 

about the allegations daily. She implored him to tell the truth, and the 

Defendant eventually told her that “[J.R.] wouldn‟t leave him alone.” 

Rowan interpreted this statement as an admission that the Defendant had 

molested J.R. Rowan said she told the Defendant she was going to tell the 

detective, and he told her that she “better not.” This made Rowan scared 

because she “didn't know what he was going to try to do.” She, therefore, 

never contacted the detective.

Rowan testified that the Defendant told her that J.R. had called him 

on the phone. He told Rowan that they “think he‟s stupid.” Rowan 

understood the Defendant to mean that the detective thought he was stupid. 

Rowan again believed this was the Defendant‟s confirmation that the 

allegations were true.

Rowan said that someone from the public defender‟s office 

contacted her requesting to speak to Keisha and Kevin. Rowan allowed 

him to come to her home and speak with them.

During cross-examination, Rowan described her shared residences 

with the Defendant as “medium” sized. She said she never saw anything in 

the way that J.R. interacted with the Defendant that raised suspicion. 

Rowan agreed that J.R. had also spent the night at the home of one of 
- 7 -

[J.R.‟s mother‟s] girlfriends. The girlfriend had two young sons, both of 

whom were close in age to J.R. Rowan said she had previously described 

the two boys as “nasty” and had expressed her belief that J.R. should not 

spend the night there.

Rowan agreed she may have told the investigator that her family had 

threatened to “turn on [her]” if she sided with the Defendant. She also told 

the investigator that there had been “trouble” within her family because she 

and the Defendant had never been married. She also told the investigator 

that “maybe” the Defendant was just “playing” with J.R., and J.R. 

misunderstood his actions.

Rowan agreed that she had never disclosed her conversations with 

the Defendant during which he seemed to acknowledge the truth of J.R.‟s 

allegations. The first time she mentioned these conversation was during the 

trial.

During redirect examination, Rowan testified that, after her 

conversations with the Defendant when she understood him to be admitting 

to molesting J.R., she made him leave their home. She never allowed him 

to return.

Sue Ross, a pediatric nurse practitioner at Our Kids‟ Center, testified 

as an expert witness in the area of pediatric nursing and forensic pediatric 

examinations. She said that the examinations at the Our Kids‟ Center 

normally took between one and three hours. During this time, a nurse 

practitioner would take a medical history from the victim and also conduct 

a physical examination. Ross said another nurse practitioner, one who was 

no longer employed with Our Kids, examined J.R., but Ross had reviewed 

the report.

The report included J.R.‟s medical history. She told the nurse that 

the Defendant had touched her private parts. She said the first time was 

while she was on an air mattress with Kevin Coleman and that the 

Defendant had pushed his penis up against her buttocks. She then told the 

nurse about a second incident where the Defendant went into her room at 

her granny‟s house and pulled down her pants and then pulled down his 

own pants. She said that the Defendant touched her on her private area but 

that his penis did not go inside of her. J.R. told the nurse that, each time the 

Defendant had touched her, he pulled down her pants. She said that she did 

not think that his penis had ever gone inside of her. J.R. told the nurse 
- 8 -

about another event where the Defendant put her on his lap and “made [her] 

move up and down on him.”

The nurse‟s report indicated that J.R. said she did not tell her mother 

because she was “scared.” J.R. described an encounter that occurred while 

the Defendant lived in the Hallmark apartment where he made her “jack 

him off.” J.R. described the final incident with the Defendant during which 

the Defendant performed oral sex on her, putting his “tongue on [her] 

private part.” The Defendant then again made her go back and forth on his 

private, but he never put his private inside of her. J.R. said she never saw 

anything come out of the Defendant‟s penis. She also said she felt better

once she told her mother about the abuse. Nurse Ross said the report also 

indicated that J.R.‟s medical examination was normal, which was consistent 

with the type of abuse she alleged.

During cross-examination, Nurse Ross agreed that the “medical 

history” taken is an oral history from the victim. This information may, or 

may not, be true.

State v. Randall Coleman, No. M2012-01285-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 4033669, at *1-8

(Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Aug. 8, 2013), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Dec. 11, 

2013).

At the conclusion of the proof, the State made an election of offenses, and the jury 

convicted the appellant as charged of one count of rape of a child for his having oral sex 

with the victim at the Tuckahoe duplex and five counts of aggravated sexual battery for 

his putting his private on her private in her grandmother‟s bedroom at the Spring Branch 

apartment; for his grabbing her hand and making her touch his penis in her grandmother‟s 

bedroom at the Spring Branch apartment; for his putting his private on her private after 

he sent Keisha to wash dishes at the Hallmark apartment; for his putting his private on 

her private while they were alone at the Hallmark apartment; and for his ejaculating on 

her at the Tuckahoe duplex. After a sentencing hearing, he received an effective fiftyfive-year sentence. Id. at *9.

On direct appeal of his convictions to this court, the Petitioner alleged, in part, that 

the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions due to discrepancies between the 

victim‟s testimony and what she told the nurse practitioner. Id. at *9. The Petitioner also 

alleged that his effective sentence was excessive. Id. at *11. This court found the 

evidence sufficient, noting that the jury resolved issues of credibility in the State‟s favor, 

and that the trial court properly sentenced the Petitioner. Id. at *10, 12.
- 9 -

After our supreme court denied the Petitioner‟s application for permission to 

appeal, he filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. Relevant to this appeal, the 

Petitioner claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine the 

victim, for failing to object to Nurse Ross‟s testimony, and for failing to confer with him

about “case strategy and other information.” The post-conviction court appointed 

counsel, and counsel filed an amended petition, additionally alleging that trial counsel 

was ineffective because trial counsel “requested a break [after the State‟s direct 

examination of the victim and] then allowed the State to go back after it had finished 

questioning the victim to prove the Rape of a Child count which it had most likely failed 

to do before.” 

At the evidentiary hearing, the Petitioner testified that he was represented by lead 

counsel and co-counsel at trial but that lead counsel was primarily responsible for his 

case. At first, the Petitioner and lead counsel had a good relationship. However, when 

the Petitioner asked lead counsel for a copy of the Petitioner‟s motion for discovery, lead 

counsel “denied” his request. Lead counsel never told the Petitioner why he could not 

have a copy. Lead counsel told the Petitioner that the victim had claimed on three 

separate occasions that the Petitioner threw her onto an air mattress and raped her. The 

Petitioner said he thought the victim made that claim in a police report. When the 

Petitioner finally received a copy of the report in discovery, though, a page appeared to 

be missing. The Petitioner stated, “I‟m thinking that the page that was missing is what he 

told me what the child said.” The Petitioner questioned lead counsel about the missing 

page, and lead counsel said that “it‟s not in there.” The Petitioner said he did not ask lead 

counsel anything else about the missing page because “I knew right there and then . . . he 

wasn‟t going to be a good attorney for me.” 

The Petitioner testified that lead counsel never mentioned an eight-year plea offer 

by the State. In any event, he would not have accepted any offer because he was 

innocent. Before trial, lead counsel gave the Petitioner a copy of the victim‟s statement 

and asked the Petitioner to highlight things he thought counsel should cross-examine the 

victim about. The victim had said things “a seven-year old wouldn‟t say,” and the 

Petitioner wanted lead counsel to cross-examine her about them. However, counsel did 

not cross-examine the victim. The Petitioner asked lead counsel why he did not crossexamine her, and lead counsel said he did not want the victim to “get up here and tell 

everything you done to her.” The Petitioner said that had counsel cross-examined the 

victim, “I probably wouldn‟t be sitting up here right today.” 

The Petitioner testified that after the State finished its direct examination of the 

victim, lead counsel asked for a recess. After the recess, the State asked to continue 

questioning the victim. The trial court allowed additional questioning, which upset the 

Petitioner. The victim‟s grandmother, who was the Petitioner‟s girlfriend, knew the 
- 10 -

victim‟s allegations were false but testified against the Petitioner at trial because her 

family threatened to disown her. Thus, she had no choice but to “side” with the State. 

An expert witness, Sue Ross, also testified for the State. The Petitioner asked lead 

counsel why the defense did not have an expert testify, and lead counsel said they did not 

need one. Nurse Ross should not have been allowed to testify about the victim‟s 

statement because she did not take the statement from the victim. 

The Petitioner testified that lead counsel “did come and see me quite often” in jail 

but that “it was more like he just misled me.” For example, lead counsel told the 

Petitioner that he had watched a video recording of the victim‟s interview and that she 

looked like she was lying. However, lead counsel did not play the video at trial. After 

the Petitioner‟s sentencing hearing, lead counsel told the Petitioner that he was sorry and 

asked the Petitioner‟s age. When the Petitioner told lead counsel that he was fifty years 

old, lead counsel said that “you just going to have to die in prison.” Lead counsel also 

made a list of things trial counsel did not do properly and gave it to the Petitioner. The 

handwritten list, titled “Things we didn‟t do right,” was introduced into evidence at the 

hearing and provided as follows:

(1) didn‟t explain what happens at trial

(2) didn‟t tell me they could read from medical report

(3) didn‟t ask permission to let nurse read from medical 

report instead of social worker who took statement

(4) didn‟t spend enough time talking to me about whether or 

not to testify

(5) didn‟t file pretrial motions [and]

(6) didn‟t discuss details of plea offer[.]

The State did not cross-examine the Petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.

Lead counsel testified that he had been licensed to practice law since 1998, that 

100% of his practice involved criminal law, and that he had handled “[p]robably 

thousands” of criminal cases. For five years, lead counsel was an assistant public 

defender, was the “team leader” in Davidson County Division III Criminal Court, and 

“more or less oversaw all the cases.” He said that he had probably tried more than twenty 

cases but that the Petitioner‟s case was the first child sex abuse case he tried. Lead 

counsel met with the Petitioner regularly in jail, and they usually had lengthy discussions. 
- 11 -

Lead counsel talked with the Petitioner about the charges, possible defenses, and possible

punishments. 

Lead counsel testified that the Petitioner claimed from the beginning that he was 

innocent, and the defense was going to focus on whether the victim‟s allegations were 

true, whether someone else abused the victim, or whether “she was making this up for 

whatever reason.” Counsel filed pretrial motions such as a motion for a bill of particulars 

and a request for discovery. Counsel received discovery, and lead counsel went over all 

discovery materials with the Petitioner. The State allowed lead counsel to watch the 

victim‟s recorded interviews at the district attorney‟s office, but the State did not allow

him to transcribe or view the interviews outside the office. The interviews were not 

played at trial. The Petitioner assisted with his defense, and the defense had an 

investigator. The State made a plea offer for “eight at thirty percent,” and lead counsel 

conveyed the offer to the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner was not interested in 

pleading guilty. 

Lead counsel acknowledged that he did not cross-examine the victim. He 

explained,

I thought her testimony during trial was somewhat vague. She didn‟t 

remember certain things. She talked about some incidents she really 

couldn‟t describe. And my thought was if I start cross-examining her, 

number one, she could clarify some of these allegations and make it worse. 

And also -- I also would open the door to the State being able to possibly 

play, you know, or introduce prior consistent statements, that kind of thing. 

So I thought cross-examining her would just make -- make the situation 

worse for Mr. Coleman. And I also thought the jury -- that there‟s a risk of 

offending the jury. And, you know, I think our hope at trial was for him 

that she wasn‟t -- you know, that because she was so vague maybe people 

would think, oh, she‟s not telling the truth because she really can‟t describe 

what happened. And my -- my gut feeling was rather than keep her on the 

stand and have her talk more about things it might be better to just let be 

what was said and move on. . . . So it was really a strategic decision.

Counsel did not call any defense witnesses to testify but “tried to point out during crossexamination of other witnesses that there were inconsistencies in [the victim‟s] statement, 

that kind of thing.” Lead counsel said he did not know of any questions from the 

Petitioner that lead counsel did not address or answer.

On cross-examination, lead counsel testified that prior to the victim‟s testimony, 

he had planned to cross-examine her. However, after her direct testimony, he asked for a 
- 12 -

recess in order to think about whether he should cross-examine her. After the recess, the 

State requested to ask the victim additional questions. The trial court allowed the State to 

do so because the defense had not yet started its cross-examination of the victim. Lead 

counsel acknowledged that the after the recess, the State “went back and questioned her 

thoroughly” and “hit home on” whether the Petitioner had penetrated her. Lead counsel 

said that he did not ask for the recess “to allow the State to improve their case” but that 

the recess could have changed the case because it “did allow them prior to my crossexamining to be able to ask the Court to ask more questions.” Lead counsel said that 

maybe he should have objected to Nurse Ross‟s reading the victim‟s statement but that he 

thought he would have been overruled because she was reading from a medical report. 

Before trial, the victim‟s grandmother told defense counsel that she did not think the 

Petitioner abused the victim. However, at trial, she testified that the Petitioner made 

some admissions to her. Counsel tried to impeach the victim‟s grandmother. Lead 

counsel said that he did not withhold any discovery materials from the Petitioner and that, 

“[i]f there was a missing page, it was nothing I withheld. It would have been just maybe 

the pages were numbered wrong or that was never provided to me.” 

Lead counsel acknowledged giving the Petitioner the list titled “Things we didn‟t 

do right.” He explained as follows:

I remember talking to him and saying that one of his options -- one of the 

avenues he could pursue is post conviction. And I said that I cannot 

represent him on that obviously because I‟m the attorney who would be 

post convicted. . . . But the areas he may be able to look at in terms of post 

conviction, the areas that there may be some issues at post conviction, were 

these areas. And I wrote them down for him. I think I talked about them. 

And he said, can you write them down, and I did.

In a written order, the post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction 

relief. Regarding the Petitioner‟s claim that trial counsel failed to communicate with 

him, the court noted that the Petitioner claimed lead counsel withheld a page of the police 

report from him but that the Petitioner testified counsel met with him regularly, had him 

examine the victim‟s statement, and had him highlight portions of the statement to assist 

counsel on cross-examination. The court also noted that lead counsel testified that he 

reviewed all of the discovery materials with the Petitioner and that they discussed the 

charged offenses, the possible punishments, and the State‟s plea offer. The court 

accredited counsel‟s testimony over that of the Petitioner.

As for trial counsel‟s failure to object to Sue Ross‟s reading the victim‟s 

statement, the court noted that lead counsel testified that he did not object because case 

law allowed nurses and social workers to read from a victim‟s medical report, even if 
- 13 -

someone else took the information from the victim. The court agreed with lead counsel, 

citing State v. Hunter, 926 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). As for trial 

counsel‟s failure to cross-examine the victim, the court found that counsel made a 

strategic decision not to cross-examine her so that she could not clarify her direct 

examination testimony, so that he would not open the door to the State‟s introducing any 

prior consistent statements, and so that he would not risk offending the jury. 

II. Analysis

On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he received the ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel because counsel failed to cross-examine the victim, “and in exacerbation of that 

problem, . . . requested a recess at the conclusion of the prosecution‟s direct examination 

of the victim, which allowed the prosecution a „study period‟ of sorts to realize that they 

had neglected to put on proof regarding penetration.” He argues that cross-examination 

of the victim was necessary because she was the only witness to testify about the abuse 

and because there was no physical evidence of any abuse. He also argues that counsel 

should have objected to the State‟s being allowed to continue its direct examination of the 

victim after the recess. Finally, the Petitioner claims that he received the ineffective 

assistance of counsel because counsel failed to provide him with an inculpatory statement 

made by the victim and failed to object to Nurse Ross‟s reading the victim‟s statement to 

the jury when she did not take the statement from the victim. The State argues that the 

Petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to relief. We agree with the State.

To be successful in a claim for post-conviction relief, a petitioner must prove the 

factual allegations contained in the post-conviction petition by clear and convincing 

evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(f). “„Clear and convincing evidence means 

evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the 

conclusions drawn from the evidence.‟” State v. Holder, 15 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. 1999) (quoting Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 n.3 (Tenn. 

1992)). Issues regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be accorded 

their testimony, and the factual questions raised by the evidence adduced at trial are to be 

resolved by the post-conviction court as the trier of fact. See Henley v. State, 960

S.W.2d 572, 579 (Tenn. 1997). Therefore, the post-conviction court‟s findings of fact are 

entitled to substantial deference on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against 

those findings. See Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001).

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. 

See State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). We will review the post-conviction 

court‟s findings of fact de novo with a presumption that those findings are correct. See

Fields, 40 S.W.3d at 458. However, we will review the post-conviction court‟s 

conclusions of law purely de novo. Id.
- 14 -

When a petitioner seeks post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, “the petitioner bears the burden of proving both that counsel‟s 

performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.” Goad v. 

State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 

687 (1984)). To establish deficient performance, the petitioner must show that counsel‟s 

performance was below “the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal 

cases.” Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). To establish prejudice, the 

petitioner must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel‟s 

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

reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the 

outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Generally, [b]ecause a petitioner must establish 

both prongs of the test, a failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a 

sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim. Indeed, a court need not 

address the components in any particular order or even address both if the [petitioner] 

makes an insufficient showing of one component. Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (citing 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).

Turning to the instant case, the Petitioner claims that trial counsel was ineffective 

for requesting a recess after the victim‟s direct examination testimony, which gave the 

State an opportunity to improve its case against him. Our review of the trial transcript 

confirms that after the State concluded its direct examination of the victim, lead counsel 

asked the trial court for a brief recess. When the parties returned to the courtroom, the 

State advised the trial court, “I just have a couple more questions that I want to ask before 

Mr. Coleman‟s lawyer starts asking questions.” Lead counsel objected to the additional 

questioning on the basis that “they‟ve closed,” and the trial court overruled the objection. 

We note that a trial court may permit the introduction of further evidence after a party has 

rested. See State v. Chris L. Young, No. M2008-01255-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 

2877422, at *3 (Nashville, Sept. 9, 2009). Thus, the Petitioner has failed to show that 

counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced by any deficiency. 

As to the Petitioner‟s claim that counsel was ineffective for refusing to provide 

him with the victim‟s complete statement, lead counsel testified that he gave all discovery 

materials to the Petitioner and that he did not withhold any page of the victim‟s 

statement. The trial court accredited his testimony, and the Petitioner has not presented 

any evidence that a page from the victim‟s statement was missing. Thus, he has failed to 

show that he is entitled to post-conviction relief. 

Regarding the Petitioner‟s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object 

to Nurse Ross‟s reading the victim‟s statement when she did not take the statement from 

the victim, the trial court correctly cited Hunter. In that case, this court held that Nurse 
- 15 -

Ross‟s “„hearsay within hearsay‟” testimony about a victim‟s statements to a social 

worker were admissible under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(4), the hearsay exception 

for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment, and Rule 803(6), 

the hearsay exception for business records. Hunter, 926 S.W.2d at 747. Accordingly, the 

Petitioner again has failed to show that he is entitled to post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner‟s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine the 

victim, however, is more concerning. We have carefully reviewed the victim‟s trial 

testimony and compared it to the statement she gave to the nurse practitioner at Our Kids. 

Some of the victim‟s testimony was inconsistent with the statement. For example, the 

victim testified at trial about two incidents, one at the Spring Branch apartment and the 

other at the Tuckahoe duplex, in which the Petitioner put her hand on his penis and made 

her rub it up and down. However, she told the nurse practitioner that the Petitioner 

grabbed her hand and made her “jack him off” at the Hallmark apartment. In addition, 

the victim told the nurse that the Petitioner put his private on her private “in my room at 

granny‟s” but did not say anything about an incident in her room at trial. The victim also 

told the nurse that she never saw anything come out of the Petitioner‟s penis. However, 

she stated at trial that he ejaculated on her at the Tuckahoe duplex and that she thought 

something came out of his penis when he put her hand on it at the Tuckahoe duplex. 

Lead counsel testified that he had planned to cross-examine the victim but that he 

decided after her direct testimony not to question her because he did not want to give her 

an opportunity to clarify her direct examination testimony, did not want to open the door 

to prior consistent statements, and did not want to risk offending the jury. Lead counsel 

stated that although he did not cross-examine her, he “tried to point out during crossexamination of other witnesses that there were inconsistencies to her statement, that sort 

of thing.” Lead counsel did not offer any examples, though, of how he pointed out those 

inconsistencies through other witnesses. We note that lead counsel‟s cross-examination 

of Nurse Ross was brief, spanning just one and one-half pages of the trial transcript, and 

that he did not use his cross-examination of her to address the victim‟s inconsistencies. 

Lead counsel briefly addressed the inconsistencies during closing argument, noting that 

the victim told the nurse practitioner that nothing ever came out of the Petitioner‟s penis 

but testified at trial that he ejaculated on her at the Tuckahoe duplex. 

Our supreme court has stated that courts should defer to trial strategy or tactical 

choices if they are informed ones based upon adequate preparation. Hellard v. State, 629 

S.W.2d 4, 9 (Tenn. 1982). Here, the post-conviction court found, and we agree, albeit 

barely, that lead counsel made a strategic decision not to cross-examine the victim. 

Moreover, even if we were to conclude that counsel was deficient for failing to crossexamine the victim, the Petitioner would have to show that he was prejudiced by the 

deficiency. The State‟s case, while not overwhelming, was strong. The victim 
- 16 -

maintained for an extensive period of time that the Petitioner abused her, and her

testimony at trial was mostly consistent with her statement to the nurse practitioner. 

Particularly damaging to the Petitioner was his own daughter‟s corroboration of the 

victim‟s testimony that the victim told her about the abuse while Rowan and the 

Petitioner still lived in the Hallmark apartment and Rowan‟s testimony that the Petitioner 

claimed that the victim “wouldn‟t leave him alone.” Thus, we cannot say that the 

Petitioner was prejudiced by any deficiency and conclude that he is not entitled to relief.

III. Conclusion

Based upon the record and the parties‟ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

_________________________________ 

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE