### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ary 16, 200 5

EDWA RD JEROM E JOHN SON V. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 2002-B-956 SteveDozier , Judge

No. M2004- 00922-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Jun e 3, 2005

Petitioner, Edwar d J erome J ones, filed a pro s e petition for post-c onviction relief, a s amende d afte r the appointm ent of counsel, arg uing that he re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel in connec tion with the negotiation and entry of P etitioner’s best interest plea. Spec ifically , Petitioner alleg es that his tria l c ou ns e l f

a ile d to a dv ise him

of thee vid e nc e a g a ins t hi m or all ow hi m to lis te n to c e rt a in audio tapes, and t h at trial counsel f ailed to file a

motion to di smiss t he cha rg es ag ainst Petiti oner. After a revie w of the rec ord in this matter, we aff irm the trial court’s dismiss al o f P et i t i oner’ s petition for post-conviction re lief.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t A ffirm e d

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., deliv er ed the opinion of the c ourt, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., joined.

Michae l A. Colavecc hio, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Edwa

rd Jerome J ohnson.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E

. Willi s, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. (Torry ) J ohnson I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and A my H. Eisenbec k, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION I. Bac kgr ound

Pe tit ion e r wa s indi c te d on o ne c ou nt o f s a le of tw e nty -s ix g rams o r m or e of c oc a ine , a

Cla ss B f e l o n y; p o s s e s s i o n o f t w e n t y- s i x g r a m s o r m o r e o f c o c a i n e w i t h t h e i n t e n tt o s e l l , a C l a s s B f e l o n y;
an d co n s p i ra cy

to sell more than thre e hundre d g rams of c ocaine , a Class A fe lony . The off enses
arose out of a series of drug purcha ses betwee n Kenne th Whitsey , Petitioner’s co-de fendant, and a

c on fi de nti a l in fo rm a nt. Pe tit ion e r e nte re d in to a ne g oti a te d p le a

a g re e me nt i n whi c h h e ple d g uil ty to the sale and fe lony

possession offense s. I n exchang e, the State a g ree d to dismi ss the conspirac y char g e and a

second, unr elated c harg e. The trial court imposed the rec ommended sente nce of eig ht-2-

ye ar s a s a R a n g e I o f

f e n d e r f o r e a c h c o n v i c t i o n , a n d o r d e r e d t h e s e n t e n c e s t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u rr e n t l y, fo r an e ff e c tiv e se nte nc e of

e ig ht y e ars

. At the post-conviction hea ring , Petitioner denied that he committed the offenses to which he pled g uilty . Petitioner said that he wa s v i s i t i n g Mr. Whits ey ’s apa rtment on Dec ember

18, 2001. Mr. Whits ey

told Petit ioner to g o into the bedroom bec ause he had “some business to take ca re of .” Mr . Wh its e y

c los e d th e be dr oo m do or , a ndPe tit ion e r re ma ine d in the be dr oo m f or tw e nty or thi rty min ute s befo re Mr . Wh its e y kn oc ke d o n th e do or

a ndtol d Pe tit ion e r t o c omeou t. P e tit ion e r s a id h e d id n o t s e e a n y o n e e n te r o r le a v e th e ap artm e n t d u r in g th a t ti me , a n d d idnot know that Mr. Whit sey sold cocaine t o a conf idential informant while he was in the be droom. Petitioner was sitting at the dining room table whe n police off icer s entere d the apa

rtment about fi ft een minutes later. Petitioner did not have any drug s or wea pons on him when he wa s arr ested. Mr. Whitsey had $4,600 in his possession, and another $2,000 wa s later found behind a water he ater in the hallway

wher e Mr. Whit sey was standing when the policeoffice rs ar rived.

Petit i o n er s ai d that his trial counsel advised him to plead g uiltyto the char g ed off enses beca use Mr. Whi tsey

g ave a written statement to the police claiming that he wa s only the middleman, and P etitioner suppl ied t he drugs sold to the confidential informant. Petitioner said that his counsel did n o t s h o w him Mr. Whit sey ’s statement, a nd he did not know whethe r or not Mr. Whit se y a c tua lly imp lic a te d Peti tio ne r in the of fe ns e s. Pe tit ion e r s a id that Mr . Wh its e y tol d s ome
o f f i c e r s t h a tP e t i t i o n e r

w a s n o ti n v o l v e d i n t h e d ru g tr a n s a c t i o n s

. P e t i t i o n e r s a i d t h a th e p l e d g u i l t y, ho we ve r, be c aus e he wa s n ot s ur e wh a t th e e vid e nc e wo uldsh ow , a ndbe c aus e his tria l c ou ns e l to ld him he wo uldbe se nte nc e d to thi rty -f ivey e ars if

he did no t ent e r int o a n e g oti a te d p le a a g re e me nt.

Petitioner also said that his counsel did not let him li sten to the seven audio tapes re corde d by the informant during the drug purcha ses with Mr. W hitsey

. Petitioner said that his voice did not appea r on the tape s. I n addition, Mr. Whit sey ’s g irlfriend, D eborah Reffe g ee, told the investig ating office rs that Mr. Whit sey sold drug s from his apartment, but she did not im plicate Petitioner in any of thetr a ns a c tio ns . F oll ow ing his arr e st o n D e c e mbe r 18 , 20 01 , Pe tit ion e r sa id that hevo lun tari ly g ave the police off

icer s the key

to his apartment. The subseq u en t s ea rc h o f t he pre mises did not dis c los e a ny

dr ug s, mon e y

or we apo ns

.
J ustin J ohnson, Petiti oner’ s trial counsel, said that some c ocaine, m ar i j u an a, and a set of scale s was found in a j ac ket at Mr. Whitsey ’s apa rtment. Petitioner later a dmitted the jacket belong ed to him. Mr. J ohnson said that he listened to all of the a udio ta pes re cording the informant’ s drug purcha ses from Mr. Whitsey and took detailed note s. Mr. J ohns o n co n ce d ed that he did not g ive the tape s to Pe tit ion e r u nti l a ft e r the ple a su bmi ssi on he ari ng , b ut h e sa id that hedis c us se d w ith Pe tit ion e r the no te s h e ha d ta ke n f ro m th e tape s p ri or

to the e ntry

of theg uil ty

ple a s.

Mr. J oh ns on sa id that hewa s n ot a wa rethat Mr . Wh its e y

ha d g ive n a

writt e n s tate me nt t o the police but confirme d that Mr. Whit sey had orally told the investigating of

fice rs that Petitioner

su p p l i e d t h e d ru g s t h a t M r

. W h i t s e y s o l d t o t h e i n f o r m a n t

. A d e t e c t i v e w i t h t h e M e tro Na sh vil le-3-

Police Depa

rtment testified to the substance of Mr. Whitsey ’s statements at Petitioner’s bond h ea ri n g.

M r

. J o h n s o n s ai d t h at i n Au gu s t , 2 0 0 2 , t h e cas e wa s s et fo r tri al i n t h e sp ri n g o f 20 0 3

. In October , Petitioner contac ted Mr. Johnson and asked him to reope n plea neg otiations. I n his letter dated Oc tober 18, 2002, c onfirming their conve rsation, Mr. Johnson wrote:

I n response to y our re quest on taking y our ca se off the trial docke t and putting it bac k on the s ettlement docket, I have g ot a settlement court date of Thur sday , November 7, 20 02 , at 9: 00 a .m.

I spoke with the D.A., and she will still of fer the eig ht y ear sentenc e at 30%. I spoke about other possibilities, but she is set on thi s. I t hink y ou have ma de a g ood decision. Eig ht y ear s at 30% is about 29 months t h at a person would have to do be fo rebe ing e lig ibl e fo r p aro le . T his is l e ss ja il cr e dit s, a nd y ou ha ve be e n ina lmo st ten months which g ives y ou an extra eig ht day s a month so y ou have te n months plus 80 day s to y our cre dit alrea dy which is almost thirteen months. You will earn e x tra
c re dit s w he n y ou ple a , a ndma ny dr ug c ha rg e s are meetin g thepa

ro le bo arde arl y b ec au s e o f j ai l cr o wd i n g.

On cr oss-examination, Mr. J ohnson said that he v isited Petit ioner be tween f our and se ven tim e s p ri or

to the g uil ty

ple a su bmi ssi on he ari ng . M r. John so n s a id h e g a ve Pe tit ion e r c op ie s o f a ll of the discove ry

materia l provided by

the State. Al t h o u gh t here was no e vidence that Petitioner persona lly

sold drug s to the confide ntial inf ormant, the evidenc e showed that Petitioner wa s in Mr. Whit sey ’s company

prior to and after the sales. Mr. J ohnson said that he dis cussed with Petitioner the pos sibili ty of fili ng a motion to dism iss but ult imately conclude d that the motion would not be

su c c e s s f u l i n l i g h to f

M r

. W h i t s e y ’ s a c c u s a t i o n s

. M r

. Jo h n s o n d i d n o tt h i n k a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e ss would have been succe ssful beca use Petitioner was only a visitor at Mr. Whit sey ’s apa rtment, and he wa s never

char g ed for

the drug s and drug para

pherna lia found in his jacket.

Mr

. Jo h n s o n a g r e e d th a t M r

. Wh it s e y to ld c e rtain p o li c e o f f ic e r s th a t Pe ti ti o n e r w as not inv olved i n th e dr

ug tr a ns a c tio ns , b ut h e sa id this on ly wh e n e ith e r P e tit ion e r o r m e mbe rs of his family wer e ar ound. Mr. J ohnson said that one of the bigg est obstacles Petitioner would ha ve to fa ce if the matter w as re solved unfavor ably at t rial wa s his prior criminal re cord. This re cord inc luded eig ht felony

convictions which would have exceede d the number of convictions neede d to classify Petitioner as a car eer offe nder for sentencing purposes. Mr. J ones said that he told Petitioner that

as a car eer offe nder he was potentially fac ing be tween twe nty and thirty y ear s for the Class B felony char g es and f

orty to six ty y ear s for the Class A f

elony char g e.

Ba sed on the e vidence prese nted at the post-c on v i ct i o n h ea ring , the trial court found that Petitioner had not met his burden of show ing by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that Mr. J ohnson had rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel and dismissed P et i tioner’s pe tition for post-conviction relief

.-4-

II. Inef fective Assistance
A petitioner see king post-c onviction relief must esta b l i s h his alleg ations by clea r and convincing evidenc e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 210(f) (1997). How e v e r , the trial court’s application of t he law to the fac ts is reviewe d de novo , without a presumption of cor rec tness. Fi e lds v . S tate , 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 200 1 ). A claim that counsel rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e is a mix ed question of fact and law and there fore also subject to de novo r eview. Id. ; State v. Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999)

. When a petitioner see ks post-conviction relief on the basis of inef

fec t i v e assistanc e of counsel, he must establish that counsel’s per formanc e fe ll below “the r an ge of c ompetence demande d of attorne y s in criminal case s.” Ba x te r v. R os e , 5 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 6 ( T e n n

. 1 9 7 5 )

. In

a dd iti on , h e mu st sh ow tha t c ou ns e l’ s in e ff e c tiv e pe rf

orma nc e a c tua lly

a dv e rs e ly

imp a c te d h is defe nse. Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 693, 104 S. C t. 2052, 2067, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1 98 4) . In r e vie wi ng c ou ns e l’ s p e rf orma nc e , th e dis tortio ns of hin ds ig ht mus t bea vo ide d, a ndthi s C o u rt will not second-g uess counse l’s decisions re g arding trial strateg ies and tac tics. H e ll a rd v. State, 62 9 S. W.2 d 4, 9 (Ten n. 19 82 ). Th e re vie wi ng c ou rt , th e re fo re , s ho uldno t c on c lud e that a pa rt ic ula r a c t or omi ssi on by

c ou ns e l is un re a so na

bleme re ly

be c aus e the str a te g y

wa s u ns uc c e ssf

ul. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. Rather, c ounsel’s alleg ed er rors should be judg ed from counse l’s perspe ctive at the point of t i m e they wer e made in light of a ll the fac ts and circ umstances at that time. Id . at 690, 104 S. Ct. at 2066.
A petit ioner must satisfy

both prong s of the Strickland test befor e he or

she may prevail on a claim of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. See H enleyv. State, 960 S.W .2d 572, 580 (Tenn. 1997)

. Th a t is , a pe tit ion e r mus t no t on ly sh ow th at his c ou ns e l’ s p e rf orma nc e fe ll b e low a c c e pta ble standards, but that such pe rformance was pre judicial to the peti tioner. Id. Failure to satisfy either prong will result in the denial of re lief. Id. Acc ording ly , t h i s C o u rt n eed not a ddress one of the components if the pe titioner fails to establish the other. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct . at 2069.
Petitioner arg ues that his trial counsel f ailed to appriz e him of the nature of the evidenc e ag ains t him, and that his failure to file a motion to di smiss t he cha rg es constituted ineff

ective assistance . Mr. J ohnson testified that he discussed the evidenc e with Petition er , including the substance of

the audio tapes o f the informant’s drug purcha ses from Mr. Whitsey , and g ave Petitioner copies of all of t he S tate’s discovery materia l. Petitioner was pre sent at the pre liminary hearing and the bond hearing wher e witnesses testified a s to the evidenc e ag ainst him. Mr. J ohnson

sa id t h a th e d i s c u s s e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f f i l i n g a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s w i t h P e t i t i o n e r b u tu l t i m a t e ly conclude d that the m o t i o n wo u l d not be succ essful in light of Mr . Whit sey ’s statements that Pe tit ion e r s up pli e d th e dr ug s w hic h h e so ld to the c on fi de nti a l inf orma nt. Pe tit ion e r r e qu e ste d h is tria l c ou ns e l to pu rs ue ple a ne g oti a tio ns

.
The trial c ourt ac cre dited the testimony of Mr. J ohnson at the post-convic tion hearing , and fou n d th a t P e ti ti o n e r

w a s a w ar e o f

th e c h ar g e s a n d e v id e n c e a g a in s t h im a n d ma d e a n in formed-5-

decision to enter

a plea of g uilty . The e vidence does not preponde rate ag ainst the trial court’s fi nd ing s th a t Mr. J oh ns on re nd e re d e ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l, o r that Pe tit ion e r h a d f a ile d to sh ow that hewa s p re

jud ic e d b y

Mr . Joh ns on ’s failu reto f ile a mot ionto d ism iss

.
After revie w of the rec ord in this matter, we find that the trial court did not err in dismissi ng Petitioner’s petition for post-convic tion relief.

CO NC LU SION

B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g , w e a ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE