### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs F eb ru ar y 3, 200 4
JOHN T . H EF LIN v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Coff ee C ounty No. 31,119 L. Craig Johnson , Judge

No. M2003- 01032-CCA -R3-P C - F iled April 30, 2004

On Marc h 11, 1998, the petitioner, John T. Heflin, was co n v i ct ed o f fi rst deg ree murder a nd sentenc ed to life imprisonment. On appe al this Court affirmed the judgme nt of conviction and the
se nte nc e . Se e , St a te v. He fl in, 15 S.W. 3d 51 9 (T e nn . Crim . App . 200 1)

. Th e pe tit ion e r s ub se qu e ntl y soug ht post-conviction relief alleg ing that his trial attorney was inef fec tive in failing to object to the te sti mony of a state wi tne ss. Th e tr ia l c ourt c on c lud e d th a t th e fa ilure to o bje c t to thi s w itn e ss’ testimony did not amount to the ineffec tive assistance of counse l. A fter a revie w of the re cord a nd the applica

ble authorities we conclude that the petitioner re ceive d the ef fec tive assistance of counse l at trial and the ref

ore the judgme nt of the post-convic tion court is AFF I RMED.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Tr ialCo ur t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W ELLES and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.
H. Thomas Parsons, Manc hester, T ennesse e, for the appe llant, J ohn T. Helfin.

Pa ul G . Summe rs , Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Mickey L ay ne, District Attorne y

Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND

On direc t appea l this C ourt summarized the evidence underly ing the petitioner’s first deg ree mur de r c on vic tio n a s f

oll ow s:-2- Richard Da

niel Clark testified that in O ctober of 1996, he w as living in the

same re sid e nc e a s h is m oth e r, Ta nie se Wils on , h is s tep-fat he r, Al Wils on , a nd his step-brothe r, Christopher Wilson. C lark testified that h i s m o t her a nd Al Wil son beg an living tog ether

in Aug ust of 1996 and they marrie d on September 28, 1996.

Clark testified that his mother date d Def endant f or a numbe r of y ear s befor e she met Mr. Wilson. Although Ms. Wil son and De fenda nt stopped dating eac h other
a t so me po int , the y be g an see ing e a c h othe r ag a in in Augus t of 1 99 6. F ro m A ugus t to October

of 1996, De fenda

nt sp en t the nig ht with Ms. W ilson wheneve r Mr. Wil son was wor

king out of

town.

Clark testified that on October 21, 1996, his mother approa ched him and stated that something bad wa s g oing to ha ppen to M r. W ilson. Ms. Wil son then asked Clark to kill M r. Wil son, but Clark did not respond. A fe w day s later, Ms. Wilson repe ated he r re quest that Clark kill Mr. Wil son. Ms. Wilson state d that "the y ' d find a plac e to do it" a

nd she also stated that if M r. W i l s o n ' s death a ppear ed to be a

n acc ident, the insuranc e policy would yield twice a s muc h money . Ms. Wi lson explained that a fter Mr . Wil son was killed, she would c laim that he had " been r obbed by Mexi cans." Ms. Wi lson also told C lark that whe n they obtained the insura

nce p r o c e e d s , s h e w o u l d

b e a b l e t o b u y a

n e w h o u s e an d

C l ar k w o u l d b e a b l e t o b u y a new truc k. Clark then ag ree d to kill M r. Wilson.

Clark testified that on October 26, 1996, Ms. Wilson w oke him up a nd asked h i m t o p i cku

p De fe n d an t

. C l ark

t o o k M s

. W i l s o n 's Be re t t a a n d dro v e t o De fe n d an t 's residenc e, but Def

endant told him to leave a nd come ba ck l ater. Clark retur ned at approximately

1:00 p.m. and Def

endant got in t he B ere tta. Clark and De fenda nt then spent the r es t of the af

ternoon a nd eveningtrave ling be tween se vera l differ ent locations wher e they

drank beer and s moked m arijuana . Whil e Clark a nd Def endant
wer e at a

n establishment n amed Ron' s Marke t at approximately 12:00 a.m., De fe nd ant t old

Cla rk that th e y ne e de d to tr a ve l to No rm and y . Cl ark un de rs too d th is comment to mean that they wer e g oing to kill Mr. Wils on.

Clark testified that he and Defenda nt then drove to a st ore by the Norma ndy Da m. Wh ile the y

we re wa iti ngin t

he pa rk inglot , De fe nd ant g a ve Cla rk a .2 2 s e miautomatic and stated that Clark was g oing to ne ed the gun. Clark and De fenda nt then waited in the p arkinglot until they saw Ms. Wilson and Mr. Wi lson drive by in a silver Thunder

bird. Clark and D efe ndant t hen drove to an ar ea ne ar the dam wher e they saw the T h u n d erb i rd. Clark pa rked ne x t to the Thunderbird a nd Clark and Def endant g ot out of the Be retta. When he g ot o u t of the c ar, Clar k saw that Mr. Wils on wa s ly ingon a bla nk e t. C lark

the n s ho t Mr . Wil so n in

the he a d tw o ti me s.-3- Clark testified that af

ter he shot Mr. Wi lson, Ms. W ilson and Def endant beg an ar g uing a

nd Ms. Wi lson stated that they "ha d to make it look rea l." De fenda nt th e nr ip p e d

M s

. Wi ls o n ' s s h ir

t a n d Cl ar k an d D e f e n d an t b e g anar g u in g a

b o u t who was g oing to hit M s. Wil son in the head. Clark eventually g ave the g un to Defe ndant and bega n walking to the B ere tta. Clark then hea rd what sounded like a " thump on
a me lon " and

wh e n h e tur

ne d a ro un d, he saw t

hat Ms . Wi ls on was un c on sc iou s. Clark and Defe ndant t hen took Mr. W ilson's jewelry and they subsequently

threw the je we lr y in a fie ld an d thr e w the g un of f a br idg e . Cl ark

and De fe nd ant t

he n w e nt t o the Wils on s' re sid e nc e wh e re the y sp e nt t he night.
Christopher Wils on testified that shortly befor e Mr. a

nd Ms. Wi lson were marrie d, De fe n d ant s pent the nig ht with Ms. W ilson in her residenc e. De fenda nt continued to spe nd the night with Ms. Wil son afte r she marrie d M r. W i lson. Christopher Wils on subsequently repor ted Def endant' s activities to Mr. Wil son, and Mr

. Wils on re sp on de d that if he wa s g oin g to b e mis tr e a te d, he wo uld mov e ba c k to his home state of Michig an.

Klouse Recc ord testified that he went to the W ilson residenc e on the morning of Oc tober 27, 1996. When Recc ord ar rived at the re sidence , he sawthat Def endant was pa cing back a

nd forth in the living r oom. Shortly there afte r, Recc ord g ave Def endant a ride to another location. When Re ccor d told De fenda nt that Mr. Wil son ha d b e e n k ill e d d

ur ing a c ampi ngtr ip, De fe nd ant s tate d th a t " it d idn ' t so un d li ke [Ms. Wil son] t o g o on a camping trip." Defenda nt also stated t hat he had been w ith Cl ark all of the pre vious night and he had come home with Clark.

Te rr y Ho lde r te sti fi e d that duri ng the fi rs t we e k of Oc tob e r 19 96 , he sa w M s. Wil son and De fenda

nt toge ther at Patricia Holder' s house. At t hat time, Mr. Holder questioned Ms. Wil son about her m ar ri age to Mr. Wil son. Ms. W ilson then stated that she had ma

rried Mr. Wil son for the kids and for the insuranc e money . When Mr. Holder a sked how M s

. Wil son would obtain insurance money , Ms. Wi lson stated, "We' re g oing to have him killed." Defe ndant t hen told Ms. Wi lson, "That way , y ou can g et that log house y ou alway s wanted."

Pa t r i c i a H o l d e r t e s t i f i e d t h a td u r i n g t h e f

i r s tw e e k o f O c t o b e r 1 9 9 6 , Ms. Wil son and Def

endant came to he r house. L ater that evening , Ms. Wi lson stated that sh e and De fe nd ant w e re g oin g to k ill Mr . Wil so n a nd us e the ins ur anc e mon e y to bu ild a log ho us e . M s. Ho lde r t e sti fi e d th a t e ve n th ou g h D e fe nd ant d id n ot a c tua lly say any t h i n g in response to Ms. Wilson's statement, he smiled a nd laug hed and ag ree d with ever

y thing Ms. Wilson said.

Josh B ro ok s te sti fi e d th a t on Oc tob e r 22 , 19 96 , he re c e ive d a te le ph on e c a ll-4-

from Ms. Wils on. I n response to this call, Brooks obtaine d a cha in and he then dr ove to the Normandy Dam. W hen Brooks arrived, he saw that Ms. W ilson's vehic le had become stuck in a culve rt. Br ooks also noticed that De fenda nt was with Ms. W ilson. Br ooks subsequently

attache d the chain to his truck and Ms. Wils on' s car and he the n pu lle d M s. Wils on ' s c ar o ut o f t he c ulv e rt

.
State v. Hef

lin, 15 S.W .3d at 521-22

P o s t -C o n v i ct i o nP ro ce ed i n gs

At the post-conviction hea ring , the petit ioner testified that his trial counsel did not g o along wi th hi s “le g a l strate g ie s. ” He state d th a t hi s ma in c omp la int wa s th a t c ouns e l f

a ile d to ob

je c t to Pa tr ic ia Ho lde r’ s te sti mony

a t tr ia l. T he pe tit ion e r a dmi tte d th a t th e Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls h e ld that Ms . H old e r’ s te sti mony wa s a dmi ssi ble . H e a lso a dmi tte d that at tr ia l, h is atto rn e y ob je c te d to Te rr y Ho lde r’ s te sti mony , wh ic h wa s sim ila r to that of

Ms. Ho lde r. Th e pe tit ion e r t e sti fi e d th a t hi s attorney was prepa

red for trial and that she interviewe d ever y witness; however , he cla imed that she wi thh e ld e vid e nc e fr om h im.

Trial counsel testified t hat she c alled eve ry witness that the petitioner wa nted to call, and she worke d very

hard on the peti t i o n er’s case . She stated that she tra cked down all of the State’s witnesses, and she was a s prepa red a s she had ever been for a trial. Counsel testified that she kept the pe tit ion e r i nf

or me d thro ug ho ut t

he tr ia l. S he state d th a t the jur or s we re int e rv ie we d a ft e r t ri a l, and th ey cou ld no t g e t pa st the fa c t th a t th e pe tit ion e r, wh o w a s h a vin g an a ff a ir wi th T anie se Wil son, spent the nig ht at the victim’s house with Ms. Wi lson on the night of the murder. She stated: “Why would he have s pent t he nig ht at Taniese Wil son’s house unless he kne w Al Wils on w a s d e a d ?”

Standard of Re view on Claims of Ineff ective A ssistance of Counsel

The pe titioner contends that he r ece ived in ef fe ct ive assistance of counse l beca use counse l failed at trial to object to the hearsay testimony of P atricia Holder to the effec t that Ms. Holder ha d hear d Taniese Wil son say that Ms. Wi lson an d the petitioner we re g oing to kill Ms. Wi lson’s hu sb and , M r. Al Wils on , f or the ins ur ance m one y . H ow e ve r, the e vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate ag ainst the post-con v i ct i o n court’s f indings that the pe titioner rec eived e ffe ctive assistanc e of
c ouns e l.

I n deter mining whe ther c ounsel provided e ffe ctive ass i s t an ce at t rial, a c ourt must decide wh e the r c ouns e l’ s p e rf

or ma nc e wa s w ith in t

he ra ng e of c omp ete nce deman de d o f atto rn e y s in
c ri min a l c a se s. B a xter

v. Ros e , 5 23 S.W. 2d

93 0, 93 6 (T e nn

. 19 75 ). To su c c e e d on a c la im that hi s-5-

c ouns e l w as ine ff

e c tiv e a t tr ia l, a

po st- c on vic tio n p e tit ion e r b e ars the burd e n o f s ho wi ngthat hi s c ouns e l ma de e rr or s so se ri ou s that he wa s n ot f un c tio nin g a s c ouns e l a s gua ra nte e d und e r t

he Sixth Am e ndme nt a

nd that th e de fi c ie nt r e pr e se ntatio n pre jud ic e d the pe tit ion e r, re su lti ngin a fa ilure to produce a re liable re sult. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct . 2052, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1984); C ooper v. State, 849 S.W .2d 744, 747 (Tenn. 1993); Butler v. State, 789 S.W .2d 898, 89 9 ( Te nn . 1 99 0) . T o s a tis fy the se c on d pr on g , the pe tit ion e r m us t sh owa

re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that, but f or counsel’s unr easona

ble er ror, the f act f inder would have had r easona ble doubt reg arding petitioner’s guilt. S trickland, 466 U.S. at 695.

I n a post-convic tion evidentiary h earing a petitioner must do more tha n mere ly prese nt evidenc e tendingto show incompetent re prese ntation and pre judice; he must p ro v e his factua l alleg ations by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40 -3 0 -2 10(f) . When an evidentiary h ea ri ng is held, findings of fac t made by

the cour t conducting it are c onclusive and binding on this Court, unless the evidenc e preponde rate s ag ainst them. Cooper. 849 S.W .2d at 746.

Whe n r e vie wi ngtr ia l c ouns e l’ s a c tio ns , th is C ourt sh ou ld not us e the be ne fi t of hin ds ig ht t o second- g uess trial strate g y and criticize counsel’s tactics. Hellar d v. State, 629 S.W .2d 4, 9 (Tenn. 19 82 ). A “ fa ir a sse ssm e nt of a tto rn e y pe rf or manc e re qu ir e s that e ve ry e ff or t be ma de to e lim inate the dis tor tin g e ff e c ts of hin ds ig ht, to re c on str uc t the c ir c ums tanc e s o f c ouns e l’ s c ha lle ng e d c on du c t, and to eva luate the c onduct from c ounsel’s per spective at the time.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct . At 2065. Def ere nce is gi v en t o t rial strate g y or tac tical choice s if they are informed one s based upon a dequate prepa ration. He llard, 629 S. W.2d at 9.

Wit h respe ct to the admissibilit y of Ms. Holder’ s testimony reg ardingMs. Wi l son’s statement that she a

nd the petitioner planne d to kill Al Wil son for the insura nce mone y , this Court state d o n d ir e c t a

pp e a l:

I ndeed, after Ms. Holder testified that Ms. Wil son stated t hat s he and Def endant [Petiti oner] wer e g oing to kill Mr. Wils on for the ins ur anc e mon e y , M s. Ho lde r t e s t i f i e d th a t D e fe nd ant " a g re e [ed ] wit h
ever y t h in g she s aid ." M

s

. H o ld e r 's te s ti m o n ya b o u t M

s

. W il s o n 's sta te me nt w as c le ar ly

ad mi ssi blebe c au sethesta te me nt w as on e in whi c h D e fe nd an t "ha[ d] ma nif este d a n a do

pti on or be lie f in its truth." Th er efore, e ven though M s. W ilson' s statement was improperly admitted through the testimony of Mr. Holder, De

fendant
was not prejudiced because the same evidenc e w as properly admitted through the testimony of Ms. Holder. (Emphasis supplied)

State v. Hef

lin, 15 S.W .3d at 523.-6-

We c ann ot s e e ho w c ouns e l c an b e he ld t o b e ine ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ilingto o bje c t to c le arl y a dmi ss ibl e te sti mony . We a re un awa re of any duty on the pa rt of c ouns e l to ob

je c t to “ c le arl y admissible” testimony

. I t the ref ore appea rs to this Court that the trial judg e’s de termination that trial
cou ns e l’ s p e rf

or manc e wa s w e ll w ith in t

he ra ng e of that e xpe c te d o f r e a so na

ble a tto rn e y s is fu lly supported by

the re cord.

Conclusion

I n light of the fore g oing, the judgme nt of the post-convic tion court is AFF I RMED.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE