### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 22
, 200 5

AR CHIE L. MILLE R v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty No. C47,970 P hylli s H. Miller, Judge

No. E2004-01134-CC A-R3- P C - June 28, 2005

Th e pe tit ion e r, Ar chie L . M ill e r, app e a ls the Sul liv a n Co un ty Cr imi na l Co urt’ s d ism iss a l of his petition fo r post-conviction re lief in which he challeng ed his three 2002 convictions of selling

coca ine. The post-c onviction court appointed c ounsel, who filed an amende d petition, a nd the court conducte d an evide ntiary hearing. Following the hearing
, the court found that the pe titioner failed to establish the ineffe ctive assistanc e of tria l counsel and de nied post-conviction re lief. We aff irm the ac tion of the post-conviction court.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt s o f the Cr im ina l C our t a r e Affir m e d.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J J ., joined.

Ray mond C. Conkl in, J r., King sport, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, Archie L . Miller.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Seth P. Kestner, As s i s t ant Att orney Gene ral; H. Gre eley Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and J. L ewis Combs, Assistant Dist rict Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

Th e pe tit ion e r’ s jury c on vic tio ns re su lte d fr om e vid e nc e that the pe tit ioner so ld

coca ine to a conf

idential informant in three audiotaped tr ansac tions. The trial court se ntence d the petitioner t o an ef

fe ctive De partment of Corr ection sente nce of ten y ear s. The petitioner f iled no motion for a new trial and pursue d no appea l.

I n the post-conviction hea ring , the petitioner testified that trial counsel he ld four five

minute meeting s with him prior to trial on four occ asions. The pe titioner testified that typically he

was una ble to rea ch counse l by

telephone. H e testified that, de spite his request that counse l investigate the bac kg rounds of c onfident i al informants Linda B rew er a nd L inda B arke r, counse l failed to do so. The petitioner opined that an investiga tion of the informants would ha ve re veale d-2-

that they had criminal recor ds. The petitioner te stified that he g ave c ounsel a li s t o f s ix or seve n

na me s o f p e op le wh o sh ou ld be int e rv ie we d, inc lud ing a ma n na me d K e y sh a wn , w ho bo re a c los e phy sical re semblance to the petitioner and w ho, the petitioner c laimed, was a ctually the per son from whom the informants boug ht coca ine.

The pe titioner testified that the per son who testified at tr i al as L i nda B rew er w as L inda B arke r, not L inda B rew er, a nd that he informe d co u n s el t h at t he witness wa s not who she claimed to be a nd was not the woma n depicted in the vide otape of a drug tra nsaction. He testified that counsel showe d neither a n interest in the issue nor in g ener ally impeaching the witness.

Concerning his claim that trial counsel coer ced him into waiving his right to testify at trial, the pe titioner admitted that, in a m i d -t ri al voir dire e x amination, he testified that he was

vo lun tari ly relinq uis hin g his ri g ht t o te sti fy . A t th e po st- c on vic tio n h e ari ng , h e c la ime d th a t hi s desire to testify at t rial was squelche d by counsel’s admonition that, if he testified, his juvenile c ourt

rec ord would be pla ced into evide nce. H e testified, “ So I g ot scare d and I d i d n ’t wa n t t o take the stand afte r that. I just ref used t o take it then.” On cross-examination, the petit ioner admitt ed that his trial counsel “didn’t pr essure [hi m] at all”; he sa id that the decision not to testify was his “own decision.”

The pe titioner testified that counsel failed t o prepa re him for the trial. I n particula r, the pe tit ion e r te sti fi e d tha t he wa s sur pr ise d a t th e larg e a mou nt o f c oc a ine that w a s in tr od uc e d in to evidenc e.

Trial counse l testified that he may have met with the petitioner only four times at the jail, but he rec alled mee ting with him on a number of occasions at the courthouse during the leng thy pendenc y of the c ase. Counsel opined tha t he was pr epar ed to try the ca se.

Th e pe tit ion e r ma de no c la im that L ind a B re we r a ndL ind a B ark e r w e re no t th e sa me person until during the t estimony of t he per son identified at trial a s L inda B rew er. Counsel testified that, w he n th e na me “ L ind a B ark e r” app e are d pr e tr ia l on a state -f ur nis he d wi tne ss lis t a ndthe na me “Linda B rew er,” but not “L inda Ba rker ,” appea

red on a superse ding list, the petitioner aske d counsel whether the two names r efe rre d to the same pe rson. At any rate , counsel testified tha t he impeac hed L inda B rew er via

a prior f elony drug conviction.

Counsel further

testified that he did not pursue c hara cter witnesses who mig ht testify that the y h a d n e v e r s e e n th e p e ti ti o n e r s e ll d ru g s b e c a u s e s u c h p r o o f w o u ld o p e n th e d o o r for the state to prese nt evidence sug g esting that the petitioner wa s indeed involved in the drug trade

.T en n es s ee Rul e of Evi den ce 609( d) pr ov i des t h at “ [ e] v i den ce of j u v en i l e adj u di ca t i ons i s general l y n ot 1

a d m issib le ” to im p e a c h the a c c u se d in a c rim ina l ca se . T e n n . R . E v id . 6 0 9 (d ).

-3- Counsel testified th at hi s conce rns about the pe titioner testify ing at trial were not based upon a ny conce rn for the petitioner’s juvenile r ecor d. Rather, his conc erns we re ba sed upon 1 the petit ioner’s inabilit y to articulate and his stubborn insis tence that he wa s not a drug -dea ler but

mere ly an ag ent who re prese nted the intere sts of sellers.

I n an extensive a nd thoroug h order
, the post-conviction court he ld that the petitioner not only failed to show a ny

defic iency of t rial counsel, but he “failed to present any cre dible evidenc e to support any

claim stated in his amende d petition.” The c ourt specif icall y acc redited “ the testimonyof [trial counsel] over that of the Petitioner,” finding much of the petitioner’s te stimony to be “pr eposterous a nd incre dible.”

On appe al the petitioner a dvance s the following claims of inef fec tive assistance of trial counsel: (1) Counsel’s investigation of the ca s e was inade quate in that he f ailed to meet adequately with the petit ioner, failed t o interview possibl e cha rac ter witnesse s, failed to explore the backg rounds of state w itnesses, and fa iled to c halleng e the identity of the state’s chief witness, L inda Br ewe r; (2) c ounsel failed to use char acte r witnesses at trial; ( 3) counsel failed to a dvise and infor m the pe tit ion e r p ri or to a nd du ri ng tr ia l; a nd (4 ) c ou ns e l c oe rc e d the pe tit ion e r i nto re lin qu ish ing his rig ht to testify

at trial.

The post-c onviction petitioner bear s the burden of proving his or her alleg ations by

c le ar an d co nv inc ing e vid e nc e

. Te nn . Code An n. § 4 0- 30 -2 10 (f ) ( 20 03 ). On app e a l, the app e llate court a ccor ds to the trial court’s f indings of fac t the weight of a jury verdic t, and these f

indings a re conclusive on appea l unless the evidence pr eponder ates a g ainst them. He nle y v . S tat e , 960 S.W .2d 57 2, 57 8- 79 (T e nn . 1 99 7) ; Ba te s v . S tat e , 973 S.W .2d 615, 631 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

.

When a post-conviction court denies a pe titioner’s claim of ineffe ctive assistanc e of

c o u n s e l
, t h i s c o u r t , o n ap p e a l
, m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e p r e p o n d e r a t e s a g a ins t a post-conviction court’s finding s (1) that c ounsel’s per formanc e wa s within the rang e of c ompetence demande d of attorne y s in criminal case s, Ba x te r v . R os e , 523 S.W .2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975) , and/or (2) that any

defic ient perf

ormanc e did not prejudice the petitioner, Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U. S. 6 68 , 6 87 -8 9, 10 4 S. Ct. 20 52 , 2 06 4- 69 (1 98 4) ; se e als o P owe rs v . S tat e , 942 S.W .2d 551, 557 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) . Courts need not addr ess these components in a ny particula r orde r or e ven addre ss both if the pet i t i o n er fa i l s to meet his burden with re spect to one. Henley , 960 S.W .2d at 580.

I n e va luatin g c ou ns e l’ s p e rf or ma nc e , th is c ou rt sh ou ld no t e xami ne e ve ry a lle g e dly de fi c ie nt a c t or omi ssi on in iso la tio n, bu t rathe r we vie w the pe rf or ma nc e in the c on te xt o f the c a se

as a w hole. Sta te v . Mitc he ll , 753 S.W .2d 148, 149 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). The primary conce rn of the c ourt should be the funda mental fa irness of the pr ocee ding of which the r esult is being challeng ed. Id. There fore , this court should not second -gu es s t ac t ical and strateg ic dec isions by-4-

defe nse counse l. Henley , 960 S.W .2d at 579. I nstead, this court must rec onstruct the cir cumstance s of c ou ns e l’ s c ha lle ng e d c on du c t a nde va luate the c on du c t fr om c ou ns e l’ s pe rs pe c tiv e a t the tim e

. Id. ; se e als o I

ric k v . S tat e , 973 S.W .2d 643, 652 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998)

.

Even if t h e p et itioner establishes that counse l’s perf ormanc e wa s not within t he requisite ra ng e of c ompetence , he must also demonstrate a rea sonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been differe nt but for the de fec tive perf ormanc e of c ounsel. Henley , 960 S.W. 2da t 58 0. A c ou rt

mus t

“ c on sid e r the tot a lit y

of the e vid e nc e be fo re the jud g e or jury . So me of the fa ctual f

i n d i ng s will have bee n unaff ecte d by the er rors, a nd fac tual finding s that wer e aff ecte d will ha ve bee n aff

ecte d in differ ent way s. Some error s will have had a perva sive eff

ect on the infere nces to be dra wn from the e vidence
, altering the entire evidentiary picture, and some will have had an isolate d trivial eff ect. . . .”

Id. (q u o t i n g Strickland , 466 U.S. at 696-97, 104 S. Ct. at 2069).

To establish prejudice from counse l’s failure to call a witness to testify at t rial, the post-convi ct i on petitioner must call the witness to testify at the evide ntiary

hearing be cause the petitioner must establish by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the witness “would have te stified favor ably in support of [the] defe nse if ca lled.” Se e Bl ac k v . S tat e , 794 S.W .2d 752, 7 5 8 (T enn. Crim. App. 1990).

Our a naly sis of the issues on appe al nee d not be protra cted. The rec ord supports the post-conviction court’s determination that the petitioner failed to e stablish his claims of ineff ective assistance of counsel by clea r and convincing evidenc e, and we ag ree that the petitioner’s e vidence in the e vid e nti ary

he ari ng wa s n e ith e r c le ar n or c on vin c ing . Thec la ims that tria l c ou ns e l f a ile d to utiliz e helpf

ul witnesses wer e not supported by any post-conviction t estimony of such witnesse s, and the g ener al cl ai m t h at counsel failed to utiliz e cha rac ter witnesse s was dissipated by counsel’s
te sti mon y that a str a te g y of pu tti ng the de fe nd a nt’ s cha ra c te r in issu e wo uldha ve be e n d isa str ou s. See Tenn. R. Evid. 404(a) (1) ( as an e x ception to g ener al rule of exclusion of bad cha rac ter e vidence that shows action in conf orm i t y wi th the char acte r or tra it, evidence of a c hara cter trait may be offe red by

the prosec ution to rebut a criminal-ca s e d ef endant’ s evidenc e of g ood char acte r). The petitioner’s c laims that c ounsel perf ormed de ficiently

in advising him and in g ener ally prepa ring for trial rema in unsupported. The c laim that counsel coe rce d or misinformed him into waiving his rig ht to testify at trial wa s addre ssed in counsel’s post-conviction testimony

. He de tailed sound tactica l

rea sons that he had articula ted t o the petitioner in re commending that the petitioner not testify , and the post-conviction court acc redited this testimony

.

Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the post-c onviction court is aff irmed.-5- ___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE