### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 5, 200 7

SEAN WILLIAM S v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

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

No. P -28195 John P. Colt on, Jud ge

No. W2006-00640-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled Novem ber 16, 2007

The pe titioner, Sean Will iams, was convic ted of fir st deg ree (pre meditated) murde r and sente nced to life imprisonment. He filed a petitio n for post-conviction relief a nd alleg ed that he r ece ived ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel at trial, which was denied by the post-conviction cour t following a hea ring . On appe al, he contends that the pos t-conviction court err ed in denying his petition and specific ally contends that trial counsel was ineffe ctive for failing to se cure a jury instruction for fac ilitation. After rev i ew , we co n clude that trial counsel was not inef fec tive, and we aff

irm the judgme nt from the post-convic tion court.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which A L AN E. G L EN N and J.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

JohnH. Park e r, I I , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, Se an Wil liams.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; J. Ros s D y e r, As sis tant Att orney Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Muriel Conner and D ennis J ohnson, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Th is c ourt

su mma ri zed the fa c ts o f t

he c a se duri ngthe pe tit ion e r’ s d ir e c t a pp e a l a s f oll ow s: Orla n d o Gates, the six teen- y ear -old victim, died from multiple gunshot wounds inflicted on January 1 1 , 1 9 9 9

. I n 1998, Gates a nd the def

endant, Edw ard Col e man, we re inv olv e d in an a uto mob ile a c c ide nt, in w hic h Co le man lo st o ne of his leg s. Sid Rhodes, a c o-def endant, testified that while he wa s visiti ng Coleman in the ho sp ita l f oll ow ingthe a c c ide nt, Col e man sa id, “ I ’m g oin g to kil l hi m,” re fe rr ingto Gates. O cassieo J ohnson, a friend of the defenda nts, testified Coleman once sa id he-2-

wanted to g et someone to “ jump” Gates. J ohnson also testified the def endant, Sea

n W i l l i am s , o n ce s ai d

h e w an t edt o s h o o tGa t es d u e t o t h e i n

j u ry t o C o l em an ’s l eg.
Around 8:00 p.m. on J anuar y 11, 1999, W illiams pi cked up Colema n, Rhodes, and Mar io Means i n a s t o l en Nissan Altim a. Coleman re moved a .25 automatic pistol from the trunk of the car . Both Jo h n s o n an d Geor g e Gates, the victim’s brother, testified the y saw Col eman with the gun e arlier in the day . Rhodes tes tified that when the y

enter ed the c ar, Williams asked, “Do you know what we f ix i n ’ t o d o ?” W h e n

Rh o d e s i n d i c a t e d

h e d i d n o tk n o w , W i l l i a m s an s w e r e d
, “ We fi xin’ to k ill him .” Whe n Rh od es ask ed who the y int e nd e d to kil l, Wi lli a ms
answe red, “ Orlando G ates.”

Wil liams, Coleman, Rhode s, and Mea ns then went to Will iams’ house, a nd Wil liams asked Rhodes to g et the victim, who was inside the house. When Rhodes knocked on the door, Gates came out of the house. Ga t es g ot into the car, a nd Rho de s w e nt i ns ide Willi a ms’ ho us e

. Gate s th e n c a me ba c k in sid e Willi a ms’ ho us e
and tol d Rho de s “ Com e on , we ’r e le a vin g .” Rho de s the n g ot int o t he car wi th Willi a ms, Col e man, Me ans , a nd Gate s.

Means testified that while R hodes was inside Wi lliams’ house, Wil liams and Coleman beg an to whisper to e ach othe r. Wil liams a sked, “Do they know what we fix in’ to do? ” Coleman said, “ No.” Wil liams the n asked, “Do they know we f ix in’ to kill hi m? ” Willi ams and Coleman then la ug hed.

Willi a ms w a s d

ri vin g the Al tim a , a

nd Col e man s a t in the fr on t pa sse ng e r s e a t. Rhodes, Means, a

nd Gates sat in the back seat with Ga tes sitting betwe en Rhodes and Means. Wil liams dr ove to the “waterfa ll,” an isolated, wooded are a at the south end of Pr os pe c t Str e e t in

Me mph is.
When they

arr ived at the “waterf

all,” W illiams pulled the car i nto a dit ch and told everyone to g et out beca use the car was stuck. Rhodes and Means testified they

a ll tri e d to pu shthe c ar, bu t Will iams h a d h is f oo t on the br a ke . M e ans tol d Wil liams to g e t hi s f

oo t of f t he br a ke , a

nd wh e n h e did , th e y

pu sh e d th e c ar u

p th e hil l.

Rhodes testified that Coleman then c ocked his pistol and fire d three shots at Gates, w ho fell to the g round. Rhodes testified W illiams took the gun from Coleman

an d s h o tGa t es i nt h e h ea d
, an d Ga t es s t o p p edm o v i n g.

Rhodes and Mea

ns testified that afte r Will iams shot the victim, he told them to s ho ot G a te s, and

if the y did no t, h e wo uld

kil l th e m. R

ho de s te sti fi e d Wil liams g ave the gun to Means, who shot the gun once toward Gates. Rhodes testified that afte r Mea ns shot the gun, Me ans g ave it to Rhodes, who fire d two shots beside Gates’ body . C o l em an s ai d Gates w as not dea d, so Wi lliams took t he g un from-3-

Rho de s and

sh ot G a te s o nc e mor e in t he he a d. Ac tin g up on

Col e man’ s in str

uc tio ns , Willi a ms h id t

he vic tim ’s bo dy

in t he bu sh e s.

Me ans , h ow e ve r, te sti fi e d Co le man f ir st s ho t G a te s se ve ra l time s. Willi a ms then took the g un and thre atene d Means a nd Rhodes with it. Mea

ns further testified he too k th e g un , h e ld i t be hin d h is b a c k, and sh ot the g un on c e wi tho ut hittin g Gate s. Willi a ms a

nd Col e man la

ug he d a t Me ans fo r mis sin g Gate s, and Me a ns ra n b a c k to the ca r. Mea ns testi fi ed Wil liams then shot Gates twice in the head, but Rhodes

never shot Gates. When Will iams g ot into the car, Me ans aske d him if he shot Gates i nt h e h e a d

. W i l l i a m s r e s p o n d e d
, “ W h e r e y o ut h i n k Is h o th i m a t , h i s e ar ?”

Coleman, Wil liams, Means, and Rhodes the n dro v e t o Wil liams’ house. J ohnson testified he saw

the Altima coming down Prospect Stree t, but because the windows wer e tinted, he c ould not see who wa s inside the car . J ohnson followed the

car to a par k i n g l o t n ear Wil liams’ house. While standing in the f ront y ard, W i l l i a m s ’ m o t h e r

ye l l e d
, “ If

I g o u p t h e r e an d a n y

t h i n g i s w r o n g w i t h t h a tb o y,
ever y body that was in the c ar is g oing to jail.” Colema n then told J ohnson to take the

car out of the neig hborhood, so J ohnson left wi t h t h e car . Means we nt home and Coleman, Wil liams, and Rhodes went inside Willi ams’ house. Rhodes te st i fi ed Wil liams’ mother aske d, “Why y ou do it? ”; no one r esponded.

Tiffa ny Pride, a neighbor
, testified Will iams came to her house on the night of January

11th looking for his g randmother

. She testified Will iams looked scar ed

and ha d s po ts o f b loo d o n h is c lot he s. She sa id s he ov e rh e ard Willi ams tell h is g ra ndmot he r h e ne e de d h e r t o w a shso me of his c lot he s.

J ohnson testified he c alled Coleman on January 12th, and Coleman said he

s h o tG a t e s a tt h e “ w a t e r f

a l l ” t h e p r e v i o u s d ay.

Rhodes and Mea

ns wer e cha

rg ed with fa cilitation of first deg ree murder a nd

we re no t tr ie d w ithCol e man a nd Willi a ms. A ju ry

fo un d Co le man a

nd Willi a ms g uil ty of pr e me dit a te d mu

rd e r, mur de r in p e rp e tr atio n o f k idn a pp ing , e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated kidnapping , and ag g ravated kidnapping . The tria l co u rt merg ed the preme ditated first deg ree murders a nd felony murders into a sin gle conviction and further merg ed the e specia lly

ag g ravated kidnapping convictions and ag g ravated kidnapping convictions into a single conviction. State v. Ed

wa rd Col e man a

nd Se an Wil liams, No . W200 1- 01 02 01 -C CA -R 3- CD , 200 2 T e nn . Cr im. App. L EXI S 965, **3-7 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, N ov. 7, 2002).
During the post-conviction hear ing, the petitioner was the first witness to testify . He sa id that trial counsel ne ver trie d to prove that he was not pre sent durin g the shooting; instead, c ounsel focuse d on attacking the inconsistencies and cre dibilit y of the other witnesses statem en t s

. The petitioner testified that his trial counsel argued that the S tate’s witnesses could not be believe d. He-4-

said he provide d the names of two alibi witnesses to counsel, but they wer e never

called. T he proposed witnesse s were his mother and the mother of his c hild. He acknow ledg ed that his mother had a dr ug problem and that she could not be found at either the time of trial or the post-c onviction h ea ri n g. He wa s al s o u n ab l e t o l o ca t e t h e m o t h er o f h i s ch i l d

fo r t h e p o s t -c o n v i ct i o nh ea ri n g.
During cross-e x am i nation, the petitioner a cknowledg ed that counse l cross-e x amined the State ’s wi tne sse s and tr ie d to imp e a c h the m wi th the ir inc on sis te nt s ta te me nts , g oin g so fa r a s to a sk them their motivation to li e and implicate the petitioner. He also ac knowledg ed that counsel ha d

c on c e rn s a

bo ut h is m oth e r’ s c re dib ili ty and may have a dv ise d him a g a ins t c a lli ng he r a s a wi tne ss. Couns e l a lso a dv ise d h im a g a ins t c a lli ngthe mot he r of his c hil d be c a

us e sh e wa s a mino r at

the tim e she bec ame pr eg nant and would ha ve bee n proof he had committed a c rime.

Next, trial counsel testified that he de termined, a fter muc h discussion with the petitioner, that the best def

ense strateg y

would be to attack the cr edibility of the State’s w itnesses. He te stified that he did eve ry

thing possible to discre dit the State’ s witnesses by showing their motivation to l ie and by impeachingthem with their own inconsistent statements. He acknowledg ed that he advise d the pe tit ion e r a g a ins t c a lli ngthe mot he r o f t he pe tit ion e r’ s c hil d a s a witn e ss be c a us e he fe are d it

wo uld br in g a confe ssi on

of statut or y ra pe and wo uld a lso pr e se nt c re dib ili ty

iss ue s. He wa s una

ble to locate the p e ti ti o n e r ’ s mo th e r p r io r to tr ia l a n d w a s a ls o c o n c e r

n e d a b o u t h e r dr u g p r o b le m a

nd

cre dibilit y

.
Counsel said he di d not reque st any instructions on lesser included of fense s beca

use he w as
arguin g that th e pe tit ion e r w a s n ot presen t or in vo lve d in the c ri me . H e did

no t w ant t o lo se
cre dibilit y

with th e j u ry

by arguing multiple theorie s and, at the same time, acknow ledg ing the pe tit ion e r’ s in vo lve me nt. Duri ng c ro ss- e xami natio n, he te sti fi e d tha t he did no t argue or re qu e st a fa c ili ta tio n in str

uc tio n b e c a

us e he did no t th ink it w a s in the pe tit ion e r’ s b e st i nte re st. He sa id h e did not think a rational jury

would convict the pe titioner of facilitation. I t came dow n to whether they believed his a

rg ument that the petit ioner was not involved or present during the shooting or ag ree d with the State that the petitioner wa s g uilty as cha rg ed.

An a ly sis

On appe al, the petitioner a rg ues that trial counse l was ineff ective a nd specific ally

contends that counsel did not proper ly investigate and prepa re for tria l and, as a

result, “e mploy ed a de fec tive trial strateg y ” that did not reque st appropriate jury instructions. The S tate conte nds that the rec ord does not support the petitioner’ s claim.

To be successful in his claim for post-c onviction relief, the petitioner must prove a ll factua l alleg ations contained in his post-conviction petition by clea r and convincing evidenc e. See T enn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110( f) (2003). “‘Clea r and convincing evidenc e means e vidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the cor rec tness of the c onclusions d ra wn from the

e vid e nc e .’ ” State v. Ho lde r, 15 S.W. 3d 90 5, 91 1 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ) (q uo tin g Ho dg e s v . S. C. To of & Co. , 8 33 S.W. 2d

89 6, 90 1 n .2 (T e nn . 1 99 2) ). I ssu e s re g ard ing the c re dib ili ty of wi tne sse s,-5-

the weig ht and value to be aff orded their testimony
, and the fac tual questions raised by the evidenc e adduce d at t r ia l a

r e to b e r e s o lv e d

b y th e p o s t- c o n v ic ti o nc o u rt a s th e tr ie r o f f a c t. Se e H e n le y

v. S t at e, 9 6 0 S

. W

. 2 d 5 7 2 , 5 7 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ). T h er ef o re , we af fo rdth e p o s t -c o n v i ct i o nco u rt ’s fi n d i n gs of fa ct t he weight of a jury verdic t, with such findings being conclusive on appea l absent a showing that the evidenc e in the re cord pr eponder ates a g ainst those finding s. I d. at 578.

A c la im of ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l is a mixe d que sti on of law an d f a c t. S e e State v. Bur ns, 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999) . We will review the post-c onviction court’s finding s of fac t de novo with a pre sumption that those finding s are corr ect. See Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 45 8 ( Te nn . 2 00 1)

. Ho we ve r, we wi ll r e vie w the po st- c on vic tio n c ourt ’s c on c lus ion s o f l aw p ur e ly de novo. I d.

“To e stablish ineffec tive assistance of counse l, the petitioner bea rs th e burden of proving both that c ounsel’s perf

ormanc e was defic ient and that the defic iency prejudice d the def ense.” Goad

v. S t at e, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996) (c iting Strickland v. Washing ton, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 10 4 S. Ct. 20 52 , 2 06 4, 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 ( 19 84 )) . In e va luatin g wh e the r t he pe tit ion e r h a s me t th is burden, this cour

t must determine whethe r counse l’s p er formanc e wa s within the rang e of competenc e re quired of attorney s in c riminal case s. See Bax ter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 19 75 ). Mo re ov e r, if a pe tit ion e r ma ke s an ins uf fi c ie nt sho wi ng of

e ith e r p ro ng , w e ne e d n ot a dd re ss both. Goad, 938 S.W .2d at 370. A revie wing court will not use the benefit of hindsight to secondg uess a tria l counsel’s strateg y or criticiz e tactics. Hellar d v. State, 629 S.W .2d 4, 9 (Tenn. 1982)

. Couns e l’ s a lle g e d d e fi c ie nc ie s sh ou ld b e jud g e d at the tim e the y we re ma de in lig ht of a ll the fa c ts and cir cumstance s. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.

The petitioner argues that counsel should ha ve reque sted jury instructions on t h e l esser included offenses of first deg ree murder, spe cifica lly fac ilitation. To support hi s argument, he cites the p o s t- c o n v ic ti o nc o u rt’ s f in d in g th a t t

h e tr ia l c o u rt s h o u ld

h a v e g iv e nin s tr

u c ti o n s o ns e c ond deg ree murder, r eckle ss homicide, and cr iminally neg lige nt homi ci d e. The post-conviction cour t fo un d th e omi ssi on

of the jur y ins tr uc tio ns wa s h arm le ss e rr or , and the pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t th is conclusion wa s improper.

The trial c ourt has a duty to instruc t the jury on any lesser inc luded offe nses of the c harg ed offe nse whe n such instruction is supported by the evidenc e, re g ardle ss of whethe r the pe titioner has reque sted such an instruc tion. St ate v. B owles, 5 2 S

. W

. 3d 69, 74 (Tenn. 2001) ; State v. Burns, 6 S.W .3d 453, 464 (Tenn. 1999)

. The standa rd for an appe llate cour

t’s revie w of the tria l court’s

c ha rg e to t he jur y re g ard ingle sse r i nc lud e d o ff e ns e s is de no vo wi th n o p re su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss. State v. Moore, 77 S.W.3d 132, 134 (Tenn. 2002).

I f an of fense is f ound to be a lesser included offe nse, the court must next ascertain whe ther the evidenc e justifies a jury instruction on the lesser i n cl u d ed o ffense. B owles, 52 S.W.3d at 75. To do so , th e c ourt

mus t f ir st d e te rm ine wh e the r t

he re is e vid enc e that “ re a so na ble min ds ” c ou ld

acc ept to establish the lesser included off

ense. B urns, 6 S

. W

. 3d at 469. The c ourt must view the evidenc e libera lly , in a light most favor able to the e x istence of the lesser inc luded offe nse, without-6-

judgingits credibility . State v. Ely , 48 S.W

. 3 d 7 1 0 , 7 2 2 (Tenn. 2001) ; Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 469. Finally , the cour

t must deter

mine if the evide nce is “ leg ally sufficie nt” to support a convic tion for the lesser included off

ense. B urns, 6 S.W.3d at 469.

The e vidence , not the t heorie s of the par ties, determines w hether

an instruction on a lesse r included offense should be given. State v. Allen, 69 S.W .3d 181, 188 (Tenn. 2002) . Fur thermore
, the de c isi on to co nv ic t on a less e r inc lud e d off e ns e sh ou ld not be take n fr om t he jur y sim ply be c a us e the eleme nt disti ng uishing the g reater off ense from the lesser offe nse is “ uncontrove rted.” I d. at 189. I f the e vidence justifies an instructio n , t h e fa i l u re to charg e the of fense is error

even thoug h the evidenc e wa s also sufficie nt to support the gr eate r off ense. B urns, 6 S.W.3d at 472.

Har mless erro r, relating to the f ailure to c harg e lesser

included off

enses, must be shown “beyond a re asonable doubt.” Ely , 48 S.W .3d at 727. The prope r inquiry is “whethe r it appea

rs bey ond a reasonable doubt that the err or did not aff ect the outc ome of the tria l.” Allen, 69 S.W.3d at 1 9 1

. I nm ak i n g t h e h ar m l es s erro r d et er m i n at i o n , t h i s co u rt m u s t“c o n d u ct a t h o ro u gh examination of the rec ord, i n cl u d i n g the evidenc e pre sented at trial, the defe ndant’s theor y of defe nse, and the verdic t returne d by the jury .” I d. I n su m, wh e n a re vie wi ng c ourt de te rm ine s w he the r a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e
ou g ht t o b e c ha

rg e d, the e vid e nc e c le arl y c on tr ols

. I f the re is e vid e nc e su ff ic ie nt t o
su pp or t a c on vic tio n f

or a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e , w e ho ld t

hat a tr ia l c ourt

mus t char g e that offe nse. The determinative test being whe ther ther e is evidenc e suff icient

s u c h t h a ta

j u r y c ou ld c on vic t on

tha t le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e . I f a jur y c ou ld c on vic t, no matter how improba

ble, it is error not to cha rg e that less er-included off ense. Ho we ve r, i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r i t w a s h ar m l e s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a

b l e d o u b t n o t to char g e a le sser-inc luded offe nse, the re viewing court must d et er mine whether a
r e a s o n a b l e j u r y wou ld

have c on vic te d th e de fe nd ant o f t he le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e instead of the char g ed offense. I n other words, the revie wing court must deter mine whether it appea

rs bey ond a reasonable doubt that the t rial cour t’s failure to instruct on the lesser -included of fense did not affe ct the outcome of t h e trial. Allen, 69 S.W .3d at 191. State v. Richmond, 90 S.W .3d 648, 662 (Tenn. 2002) (empha sis in original).

Counsel te stified that he and the petitioner dete rmined their de fense was that the pe titioner was not pre sent during the shooting. A s a re sult, they attempted to attac k the cr edibility o f the State’s witnesses. The petitioner ac knowledg ed that their tria l strateg y revolve d around him having no involvement in the crime. The ref ore, c ounsel d i d n o t request instructions on lesser included of fe ns e s b e c a

us e it w a s n ot i n th e pe tit ion e r’ s b e st i nte re st t o a rgue se ve ra l a lte rn a tiv e the or ie s. Ba sed on the proof p re s en t ed at t rial and the ag ree d upon trial strateg y , counsel made the tactica l decision not to reque st lesser included of fense s.

The State cites a re cent de cision, J immy Ray Cureton v. State, No. E2005-02491- CCA-R3- PC, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 693, at * 9 (T en n . Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2006, at Knox ville), perm. to appe al denied ( Tenn. De c. 18, 2006), w here this court aff irmed a simil ar tactica l decision-7-

by counsel in which he did not reque st a fac ilitation charg e bec ause he believed it would we aken the ability to claim that the client was not prese nt at t he ti me of the crime. This cour t concluded that trial counsel made a strate g ic dec ision not t o reque st a lesser incl u ded off ense a nd declined to se condg uess the dec ision. L ikewise, we will not re- evaluate counsel’s strateg ic dec ision ag ainst reque sting the proposed jur

y ins t ru ct i o n s , and we conclude that counsel wa s not ineffe ctive for pursuing the pa rt ic ula r c ours e he took in h is r e pr e se ntatio n o f t he pe tit ion e r. Th e pe tit ion e r h a s n ot m e t hi s burden of showing that counsel wa s deficie nt in his represe ntation.

Ne xt, w e a c kn ow le dg e that, at the tim e of the pe tit ion e r’ s tria l, the tr ia l c ourt ha d a du ty to instruct the jury

on any lesser inc luded offe nses supported by the evidenc e, re g ardle ss of whethe r the petitioner re quested such a n instruction. See B owles, 52 S.W.3d at 74, and Bur ns, 6 S.W .3d at 464. The pe titioner states in his brief that the jury was instructed on the lesser included offe nse of sec ond deg r e e mu

r d e r b u t w a s n o t in s tr

u c te d o n f

a c il it a ti o n o f e it

h e r o f f e n s e

. T h e St a te s u

b mi ts and we

a g re e that, b a se d o n th e pr e se nte d a pp e llate reco rd, we ar e un a ble to c on du c t a

pr op e r r e vie w t o de te rm ine wh e the r t

he e vid e nc e su

pp or ts a n in str uc tio n o n th e re qu e ste d le sse r i nc lud e d o ff e ns e s in spite of the trial c ourt’s duty

.
The re cord on a

ppeal doe s not include a c opy o f t h e trial tra nscripts, and they

wer e not introduced a s an exhibit during the post-conviction hearing

. I t is well settled that an appe llant has

a du ty to pr e pa

re a re c or d that c on ve y s a fa ir
, a c c ur a te , a nd c omp le te a c c ount o f w hat tr ans pir e d w ith respe ct to the issues forming the basis of the a ppeal. State v. B allard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tenn. 1993). When the re cord is incomplete a nd does not contain a transcr ipt of the proce eding s releva nt to an issue pre sented for

revie w, this court ca

nnot co n s i d er the merits of the issue. I d. at 560-61. See also Te nn. R. App. P. 24(b). The pe titioner ref ers to the tria l rec ord in his brief but did not take steps to include it a s part of the rec ord on appea l. Be cause we cannot revie w the trial transc ript, we cannot de termine if the pe titioner’s trial was pr ejudiced by trial counsel’ s err ors as a l l eged and, there fore , the issues must be deeme d as wa ived. B ased on the limit ed re cord be fore us, we find nothing to conc lude that the petitioner w as any thing less than a l ea d er in the commission of the murder a nd, there fore
, an ins truction on the lesser included off

ense of fac ilitation was not warra nted.

Conclusion

B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g and th e re c or d a s a wh ole , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt f

ro m th e po stc on vic tio n c ourt

.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE