### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE

AT JACKSON

Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Sep te m be r 7, 2 01 1

NORRIS E. RAY v. STATE OF TENNESS EE

A p p e a l f r o m t h e C r i m i n a l C o u r t f o r S h e l b y C o u n t y
N o s

. 0 2

- 0 2 9 1 7

- 1 8 J o h n T

. F o w l k e s , J r

. , J u d g e

N o

. W 2 0 1 0

- 0 1 6 7 5

- C C A

- R 3

- P C

- F i l e d N o v e m b e r 3 0
, 2 0 1 1

T h e p etitio n er, N o rris E

. R ay , ap p eals th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt’s d en ial o f h is p etitio n f o r

p o st-co n v ictio n relief

, arg u in g h e receiv ed th e in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel at trial an d

o n ap p eal. A f

ter rev iew , w e af

f irm th e d en ial o f

th e p etitio n

.

T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; J u d g m e n t o f t h e C r i m i n a l C o u r t A f f i r m e d

A LA N E

. G LE N N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

, i n w h i c h T H O M A S T

. W O O D A LL a n d

J E F F R E Y S

. B IV IN S

, J J

. , j o i n e d

.

P a u l K

. G u i b a o ( o n a p p e a l ) a n d A n d r e w H u t c h i n s o n ( a t h e a r i n g )

, M e m p h i s , T e n n e s s e e , f o r

t h e a p p e l l a n t

, N o r r i s E

. R a y

.

R o b e r t E

. C o o p e r , J r

. , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r ; L e s l i e E

. P r i c e , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; A m y P

. W e i r i c h

, D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; a n d P a u l H a g e r m a n , A s s i s t a n t D i s t r i c t

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, f

o r t h e a p p e l l e e , S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e

.

O P I N I O N

F A C T S

T h e p etitio n er w as c o n v i c t e d o f f irst d eg ree f

elo n y m u rd er, esp ecially ag g rav ated

k id n ap p in g , an d u n law f

u l p o ssessio n o f a h an d g u n b y a S h elb y C o u n ty C rim in al C o u rt j u ry

an d w as sen ten ced to an ef f ectiv e term o f lif

e p lu s f o rty -f o u r y ears in th e D ep a r t m en t o f

C o rrecti o n

. O n d irect ap p eal, th is co u rt af f irm ed h is co n v ictio n s an d sen ten ces an d th e T en n essee S u p r e me C o u r t d en ied h is ap p licatio n f o r p erm issio n to ap p eal. S ee S tate v

. N o rris R ay , N o

. W2 0 0 4 -0 1 2 4 7 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 5 WL 1 5 4 1 7 8 5 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. Ju n e 2 7

, 2 0 0 5 ), p erm

. to ap p eal d en ied (T en n

. D ec. 5

, 2 0 0 5 ). T h e u n d e r l y in g f acts o f th e case

w ere recited b y

th is co u rt o n d irect ap p eal as f o llo w s:K ev in Wisem an an d h is b ro th er, Jesse Win d o m, o w n ed a car lo t in

M em p h i s

. M r. Win d o m called h is b ro th er aro u n d 6 :0 0 p .m

. o n A u g u st 7

, 2 0 0 1

, af ter th e b u sin ess w as clo sed

, an d ask ed M r. Wisem an to m eet h im at
th e car lo t so h e co u ld g et a set o f car k ey s f ro m M r. Wisem an

. M r. Wisem an testif ied th at M r. Win d o m w as d riv in g a 2 0 0 1 b lack L ex u s. M r. Wisem an arriv ed at th e car lo t an d p ark ed o n th e street. M r. Win d o m b ack ed th e L ex u s in to th e car lo t’s f

en ced p ark in g area.

A w h ite D o d g e S tratu s w ith th ree A f rican -A m erican m ales in it p u lled

u p to th e car lo t. O n e o f th e m en g o t o u t o f th e car an d b eg an talk in g to M r. Win d o m

. T h e m an w av ed h is h an d f o r th e seco n d m an to g et o u t o f th e car. T h e seco n d m an ap p r o ach ed M r. Wisem an w ith a h an d g u n

. T h e th ird m an

rem ain ed in th e D o d g e. H e stu ck a sh o tg u n o u t o f th e car’s w in d o w an d to ld

M r. Wisem an h e w o u ld sh o o t h im if M r. Wisem an attem p ted to f lee. T h e f irst

m an p u lled u p h is sh irt to sh o w M r. Win d o m th at h e w as arm ed

. M r. Wisem an later id en tif

ied [ th e p etitio n er] f

ro m a p h o to lin eu p as th e f irst m an

w h o ap p ro ach ed M r. Win d o m , an d [ th e p etitio n er] ’s co -d ef en d an t, N ak o m is

Jo n es, as th e m an w h o ap p ro ach ed M r. Wisem an

.

T h e m en d em an d ed th e k ey s to th e b u sin ess o f f ice. M r. Wisem an to ld [ th e p etitio n er] th e k ey s w ere in h is car, b u t [ th e p etitio n er] g o t in to th e L ex u s in stead an d started th e en g in e. M r. Jo n es p u s h e d M r. Wisem an to w ard th e L ex u s, an d to ld h im to g et in to th e tru n k

. M r. Wisem an g o t in to th e tru n k

, an d
th e car started m o v in g

. M r. Wisem an h eard o n e o f th e m en ask h is b ro th er

w h ere th e m o n ey w as, an d h is b ro th er resp o n d ed th at th e p o lice h ad tak en all
th e m o n ey

. T h e m an k ep t rep eatin g h is d em an d

, an d M r. Win d o m k ep t say in g th at h e d id n o t h av e an y m o n ey

. A f ter d riv in g f

o r f iv e t o ten m in u tes, M r. Wisem an h eard a g u n sh o t, an d h is b ro th er said “o h .”

M r

. W i s e ma n th en h eard o n e o f th e m en say th at h e saw th e p o lice.

T h e L e x u s sp ed u p an d m ad e n u m ero u s tu rn s. T h e car sto p p ed

, an d M r. Wisem an h eard th e car’s d o o rs o p en an d clo se. H e w aited ab o u t ten o r f if teen

m in u tes an d th en b eg an p o u n d in g o n th e ro o f o f th e tru n k

. M r. Wisem an d id

n o t k n o w th at th e L ex u s h ad an em erg en cy release b u tto n in sid e th e tru n k

, b u t
h e accid en tly h it th e b u tto n w ith h i s a r m. T h e tru n k p o p p ed o p en , an d M r. Wisem an g o t o u t o f th e tru n k

. N o o n e w as aro u n d

, an d M r. Wisem an d id n o t
see th e D o d g e S tratu s.

M r. Wisem an said th at th e car h ad sto p p ed at th e S o u th w o o d

A p artm en ts w h ich w ere n ex t d o o r to th e F lairw o o d A p artm en ts. H e called

-2-M r. Win d o m o n h is cell p h o n e b u t d id n o t g e t a n an sw er. M r. Wisem an

cau g h t a rid e w ith a f

rien d b ack to h is b u sin ess. B ef o re th ey reach ed th e car lo t, h o w ev er, M r. Wisem an saw an o th er f rien d at th e in tersectio n o f
Win ch ester an d T sch u lah o m a. T h e f rie n d to ld M r. Wisem an th at M r. Win d o m h ad b een sh o t an d w as in an am b u lan ce at th e M ap co g as statio n at
th e in tersectio n . M r. Wisem an said th at h is o rd eal lasted ab o u t o n e h o u r.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , M r. Wisem an said th at h e w as in th e car’s tru n k
b e t w e e n f

i f teen an d th irty m in u tes. M r. Wisem an said th at [ th e p etitio n er]

w as at th e d riv er’s sid e d o o r w h en M r. Jo n es p u t h im in t h e t r u n k so h e

a ssu m ed [ th e p etitio n er] w as d riv in g th e L ex u s. M r. Wisem an said th at t h e

o n ly v o ice h e co u ld id en tif

y w h ile h e w as in th e tru n k w as h is b ro th er’s.

G ary C lax to n , a M em

p h is p o lice o f

f icer, w a s o f

f

- d u ty o n A u g u st 7

, 2 0 0 1

. H e w as d riv in g w est o n Win ch ester in a N issan M ax im a w h en a b lack

L ex u s an d a w h ite D o d g e S tratu s en tered th e ro ad f ro m an ap artm en t co m

p lex

an d n early stru ck h is car. O f f icer C lax to n said th at th e D o d g e w as f o llo w in g th e L ex u s, an d b o th cars w ere b ein g d riv en erratically

. A ll th ree cars en tered
th e lef t tu rn lan e at th e in tersectio n o f Win ch ester an d T sch u lah o m a. T h e L ex u s w as f

irst in lin e, f

o llo w ed b y th e M ax im a an d th en th e D o d g e. A m an j u mp e d o u t o f th e rear p assen g er seat o f th e L ex u s an d ran to w ard a M ap co

g as statio n . O f

f icer C lax to n said th e m an lo o k ed “p an ick ed .”

T h e L ex u s m ad e a u -tu rn a n d d ro v e in to th e g as statio n

. T h e lig h t

tu rn ed g reen , an d th e D o d g e n early h it O f f icer C lax to n ’s car ag ain

. O f f icer

C lax to n let th e D o d g e p ass h im an d reco rd ed th e car’s licen se p late n u m b er. H e called th e d is p a t c h e r t o rep o rt th e in cid en t. O f f icer C lax to n said th at h e

attem p ted to f o llo w th e D o d g e an d L ex u s, b u t h e d id n o t see th e cars ag ain
af ter th ey d ro v e aw ay f

ro m th e M ap co

. Wh en h e retu rn ed to th e g as statio n , O f f icer C lax to n said th at th e m an w h o h ad j u m p ed o u t o f th e L ex u s w as ly in g

o n th e g ro u n d

. It w as later d eterm in ed th at th e D o d g e S tratu s w as reg istered

to C h an d ra Jo n es.

C h an d ra Jo n es co n f

irm ed th at sh e o w n ed th e D o d g e. S h e said th at sh e lo an ed th e car to [ th e p etitio n e r ] o n A u g u st 7

, 2 0 0 1

, b etw een 4 :3 0 p .m

. an d

5 :0 0 p .m

. A b o u t 6 :4 5 p .m ., sh e called h er cell p h o n e w h ich w as in th e D o d g e,

an d a m an n am ed “G en o ” an sw ered

. [ T h e p e t itio n er] later testif ied th at
“G en o ’s” n am e w as E u g e n e P i c k en s. M r. P ick en s to ld M s. Jo n es th at [ th e

p etitio n er] w as in th e b ath ro o m

.

-3-M s. Jo n es said th at [ th e p etitio n er] retu rn ed to h er ap artm en t af ter sh e

w as asleep

. T h e p o lice called so m e tim e af ter m id n ig h t an d ask ed M s. Jo n es

to step o u t o f h er ap artm en t. M s. Jo n es w en t o u tsid e, an d th e p o lice to o k h er

to a telep h o n e b o o th so th at sh e co u l d c a ll [ th e p etitio n er] an d ask h im to

co m e o u t o f th e ap artm en t. M s. Jo n es said th at sh e d id n o t see [ th e p etitio n er]
arrested b ecau se th e p o lice w o u ld n o t tak e h er b ack h o m e.

K im H u g h es stated th at sh e liv es at th e F lairw o o d A p artm en ts. O n th e

ev en in g o f A u g u st 7

, 2 0 0 1

, h er d au g h ter an d f o u r o th er little g irls w ere

p lay in g o u tsid e h er ap artm en t. A m an , w h o m M s. H u g h es later id en tif ied as N ak o m is Jo n es, ap p ro ach ed h er ap artm en t aro u n d 6 :3 0 o r 6 :4 5 p .m

. an d ask ed
th e litt l e g i r l s i f h e co u ld u se th e telep h o n e. M s. H u g h es cam e to th e f ro n t
d o o r, an d M r. Jo n es to ld h er th at h e h ad car tro u b le. M s. H u g h es to ld M r. Jo n es to co m e to th e b ack d o o r, an d sh e h an d ed h im h er c o r d less telep h o n e th ro u g h th e d o o r. M s. H u g h es said th at M r. Jo n es k ep t d ialin g a c o u p le o f

n u m b ers an d t h e n h an g in g u p

. A seco n d m an , w h o m M s. H u g h es later
id en tif ied as [ th e p etitio n er]

, w alk ed u p f ro m b eh in d th e ap artm en t b u ild in g

. M r. Jo n es ask ed h im f

o r “b ro th er’s” telep h o n e n u m b er. M r. Jo n es still d id n o t
d ial th e telep h o n e co rrectly

, an d [ th e p etitio n er] to o k th e telep h o n e f ro m h im

an d p laced th e call. S o me o n e an sw ered

, an d [ th e p etitio n er] said

, “G en o ,

co m e an d g et u s.” [ T h e p etitio n er] ask ed M s. H u g h es f o r th e n a me o f t h e

ap artm en t co m

p lex

. [ T h e p etitio n er] retu rn ed th e telep h o n e to M s. H u g h es,

an d th e tw o m en lef

t.

M r. Jo n es, h o w ev er, retu rn ed to h er ap artm en t less th an a m in u te later,

an d M s. H u g h es called 9 1 1

. T h e p o lice d id n o t resp o n d to h er 9 1 1 call. M s. H u g h es saw a rep o rt o f th e sh o o tin g o n t h e e v en in g n ew s an d called C rim e S to p p ers.

O f f icer P ren tiss Jo lly w ith th e M em p h is P o lice D ep artm en t resp o n d ed

to th e d isp atch er’s call ab o u t sh o ts f ired at th e in tersectio n o f Win ch ester an d

T sch u lah o m a. T h e v ictim h ad b een tran sp o rted to th e h o sp ital b y th e tim e h e

a r r i v e d

. T h e in v estig atin g o f f icers receiv ed n o tice w h ile th ey w ere at th e M ap co statio n th a t t h e v ictim h ad d ied

. O f f icer Jo lly in terv iew ed M r. Wisem an an d O f

f icer C l a x t o n

. H e w en t to C h an d ra Jo n es’ ap artm en t an d

f o u n d th e w h ite D o d g e S tratu s in th e co m p lex ’s p ark in g lo t. O f

f icer Jo lly
called M s. Jo n es o n th e telep h o n e an d ask ed h er to co m e o u t o f th e ap artm en t
in an ef f o rt to av o id a co n f

ro n tatio n w ith [ th e p etitio n er]

. O f f icer Jo lly to o k

M s. Jo n es to a telep h o n e b o o t h d o w n t h e street. M s. Jo n es called [ th e

p e t i t i o n er]

, b u t h e w o u ld n o t an sw er th e p h o n e. M s. Jo n es th en called [ t h e

-4-p etitio n e r ] o n O f f icer C lax to n ’s cell p h o n e, an d [ th e p etitio n er] an sw ered

. [ T h e p etitio n er] an d M s. Jo n es talk ed f o r a f ew m in u tes, an d [ th e p etitio n er]

ag reed to co m e o u t o f th e h o u se. O f f icer C lax to n said th ey w ere ab le to tak e [ th e p etitio n er] in to cu sto d y w ith o u t in cid en t.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , O f f icer C l a x to n said th at h e h ad in terv iew ed

D an a P o rter. H e also h ad h e a r d th e n am e “G en o ” m en tio n ed in co n n ectio n

w ith th e sh o o tin g , b u t h e d id n o t f in d an y th in g lin k in g h im

to th e crim e.

M r. Jo n es’ p alm p rin t w as f o u n d o n th e o u tsid e rear d o o r p an el o n th e

p assen g er sid e o f th e D o d g e S tratu s. [ T h e p etitio n er] ’s f in g er p rin t w as f

o u n d

o n t h e d riv er’s sid e w in d o w o f th e D o d g e S tratu s. T w o o f M r. Win d o m ’s
f in g erp rin ts w ere f

o u n d o n th e L ex u s.

D r. T o m D eerin g , th e in t e r i m m ed ical ex am in er f o r S h elb y C o u n ty

, stated th at th e cau se o f M r. Win d o m ’s d eath w as a g u n sh o t w o u n d to th e ab d o m en

. T h e b u llet sev ered th e rig h t iliac artery an d rig h t co m m o n iliac v ein

cau sin g sev ere in tern al h em o rrh ag in g

.

[ T h e p etitio n er] testif

ied in h is o w n b eh alf

. H e said th at h e w as at M s. Jo n es’ ap artm en t o n A u g u st 7

, 2 0 0 1 u n til aro u n d n o o n

. [ T h e p etitio n er] th en

w en t n ex t d o o r t o h is m o th er’s h o u se an d sp en t th e af tern o o n carin g f

o r h er b ecau se sh e h ad recen tly h ad su rg ery

. A ro u n d 4 :0 0 p .m ., h e retu rn ed to M s. Jo n es’ ap artm en t an d to ld h er h e n eed ed to g et so m e f resh a i r

. [ T h e

p etitio n er] d ro v e M s. Jo n es’ D o d g e S tratu s to M r. P ick en s’ ap artm en t aro u n d

4 :1 5 p .m

. [ T h e p etitio n er] said th at M s. Jo n es’ k ep t callin g h im ask in g h im

to retu rn h er car. [ T h e p etitio n er ] ’ s b r o t h er, M arv in

, cam e o v er to M r. P ick en s’ ap artm en t ab o u t th irty m in u tes af ter [ th e p et i t i o n e r ] arriv ed

. [ T h e

p etitio n er] lef

t th e D o d g e S tratu s at M r. P ick en s’ ap artm en t co m p lex

, an d [ th e

p e t itio n er] an d h is b ro th er w en t to an o th er b ro th er’s h o u se w h ere [ t h e

p et i t i o n e r ] m et D ap h n e L o v e. [ T h e p etitio n er] an d M s. L o v e d ro v e to
D y ersb u rg aro u n d 5 :0 0 p .m an d retu rn ed to M em p h is a t 1 0 :0 0 p .m

. [ T h e

p etitio n er] w en t b ack to M r. P ick en s’ ap artm en t co m p lex an d f

o u n d th at M s. Jo n es h ad n o t retriev ed h er car. M r. P ick en s’ g irlf rien d g av e [ th e p etitio n er]
th e k ey s to th e D o d g e, an d h e d ro v e to M s. Jo n es’ ap artm en t.

[ T h e p etitio n er] said th at h e an sw ered th e telep h o n e w h en th e p o l i ce called M s. Jo n es’ ap artm en t in th e early m o rn in g h o u rs o f A u g u st 8

, 2 0 0 1

. H e said th e p o lice ask ed to sp eak to M s. Jo n es b ecau se h er car h ad b een in v o lv ed

in a h it an d ru n accid en t. [ T h e p etitio n er] h u n g u p th e telep h o n e, an d th e

-5-p o lice called b ack . F in ally , [ th e p etitio n er] g av e th e telep h o n e to M s. Jo n es

w h o w en t o u tsid e.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , [ th e p etitio n er] said th at h e h ad b een sen ten ced

to f if teen y ears o n each o f tw o p rio r b u rg lary co n v ictio n s. H e said th at h e h ad

seen M r. Win d o m in th e n eig h b o rh o o d b u t d id n o t k n o w h im

. [ T h e

p etitio n er] said th at h e sp o k e w ith sev eral p eo p le in D y ersb u rg , in clu d in g h is
b ro th er, A n th o n y , an d M s. L o v e’s m o th er. [ T h e p eti t io n er] said th at M r. P ick en s w as cu rren tly in th e S h elb y C o u n ty j ail. [ T h e p etitio n er] said th at h is
b ro th er h ad atten d ed h is trial d u rin g th e S tate’s p ro o f

, b u t th e trial co u rt w o u ld

n o t allo w h is b ro th er to testif y

. [ T h e p etitio n er] said th at all o f h is f am ily

m em b ers w ere cu rren tly

in C h icag o atten d in g h is g ran d m o th er’s f u n eral.

Id . at * 1 -4

.

T h e p etitio n er f

iled a p etitio n f

o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief

, as w e l l as an am en d ed

p etitio n , in w h ich h e raised , p rim arily , a n u m b er o f alleg atio n s o f in ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f
trial an d ap p ellate co u n sel. T h e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt co n d u cted an ev id en tiary h earin g , at

w h i c h t h e p etitio n er testif ied h e w as arrested o n A u g u st 7

, 2 0 0 1 an d h ad rem ain e d i n

cu sto d y sin ce th at tim e. A p p ro x im ately tw o w eek s af ter h is arrest, h e w as ap p o in ted co u n sel

to rep resen t h im at trial. T h e p etitio n er claim ed th at, f ro m th e tim e o f h is arrest in 2 0 0 1 to
h is trial in 2 0 0 3

, h e o n ly m et w ith trial c o u n sel tw o tim es. T h e rem ain d er o f th eir

c o m m u n icatio n w as th ro u g h letters. T h e p etitio n er w as aw are th at trial co u n s e l h a d a n assistan t w h o h elp ed w i th th e in v estig atio n o f h is case, b u t th e p etitio n er n ev er m et o r

co m m u n icated w ith th e in v estig ato r.

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at, d u rin g h is m eetin g s w ith trial co u n sel, h e d iscu ssed w h at

m o tio n s h e w an ted to f

ile an d th at h e w an t e d t o p r esen t an alib i d ef en se. T h e p etitio n er

p ro v id ed trial co u n sel w ith in f o rm atio n reg ard in g h is alib i an d th e n am es an d ad d resses o f

p eo p le w h o co u ld v erif

y it. H o w ev er, trial co u n sel m ad e n o ef f o rts to in v estig ate h is alib i
d ef en se. A cc o r d i n g t o t h e p etitio n er, o n th e d ay o f th e o f f en ses, h e w as at h o m e w ith h is

m o th er w aitin g f

o r an in -h o u se n u rse to arriv e. Wh en h is f ian cée retu rn ed h o m e at 4 :3 0

, h e

w en t to a f

rien d ’s h o u se.

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at, “ab o u t th e f

irst o f D ecem

b er,” trial co u n sel g av e h im a

co p y o f th e S tate’s m o tio n f o r alib i d ef

en se th at h ad b een serv ed o n co u n sel o n S ep tem b er 9

, 2 0 0 2

. P rio r to th at d ay , th e p etitio n er h ad g iv en trial co u n sel in f o rm atio n co n cern in g h is
alib i, an d th e p etitio n er h ad f iled a co m

p lain t ag ain st co u n sel o n Ju n e 1 0

, 2 0 0 2

, f o r f ailin g

to in v estig ate h is alib i d ef en se. A f ter receiv in g th e S tate’s n o tice f o r alib i f ro m trial co u n sel,
th e p etitio n er w ro te co u n sel, o n D ecem b er 5

, 2 0 0 2

, a d etailed letter p ro v id in g in f o rm atio n

-6-ab o u t h is alib i a n d t h e w itn esses to in v estig ate. T h e p etitio n er p resen ted a certif ied m ail receip t sh o w in g th at th e d o cu m en t w as d eliv ered

. T o th e p e t i t i o n er’s k n o w led g e, trial

co u n sel n ev er f

iled a resp o n se to th e m o tio n f o r alib i d ef

en se.

T h e p etitio n er stated th at so m e m em b ers o f h is f

am ily w ere av ailab le to testi f y

co n cern in g h i s a l i b i u n til m id w ay th ro u g h trial w h en th ey h ad to leav e to atten d th e

p e t i t i o n er’s g ran d m o th er’s f u n eral. T rial co u n sel w as n o tif ied ab o u t th e f

u n eral, an d th e

p etitio n er w as assu red th at co u n sel w o u ld “g et th em o n th e stan d b ef

o re th ey h ad to leav e

to w n .” T h e p etitio n er said th at trial co u n sel, h o w ev er, n ev er called h is f am ily m em

b ers to
testif y

.

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at D af

an y L o v e w as o n e o f th e alib i w itn ess n am es h e g av e

t o t r i a l co u n sel. A cco rd in g to th e p etitio n er, L o v e in f o rm ed h im th at trial co u n sel’s

in v estig ato r h ad v isited h er o n an u n related m atter, an d L o v e h ad to ld th e in v estig ato r th at
“sh e w an ted to see [ co u n sel] p erso n ally .” T h e p etitio n er assu m ed th at trial co u n sel h ad th e ab ility to su b p o en a L o v e to b e at h is trial sin ce h er lo catio n w as k n o w n to h im

, b u t L o v e w as

n o t at th e trial.

T h e p etitio n er said th at h e d ecid ed to testif y b ecau se trial co u n sel d id n o t call an y o f

h is alib i w itn esses. H o w ev er, h e ack n o w led g ed th at h e n ev er to ld trial co u n sel p rio r to trial
th at h e w as n o t g o in g to testif y , an d h is testif

y in g w as alw ay s a p o ssib ility lead in g in to trial.

T h e p etitio n er said th at h e w as cro ss-ex am in ed at trial co n cern in g w h y h e d i d n o t p r e sen t

an y co rro b o ratin g testim o n y reg ard in g h is alib i, an d h e resp o n d ed th at h e h ad p ro v id ed th e in f o rm atio n to trial co u n sel b u t co u n sel f ailed to b rin g th e w i t n e s s e s t o co u rt. T h e co u rt “g av e a cu rativ e in stru ctio n say in g th at b o th sid es h av e su b p o en a p o w er an d o n ly o n e sid e is req u ired to d o it.” T h e p etitio n er b eliev ed th at trial co u n sel sh o u ld h av e o b j ected to th at

cu rativ e in stru ctio n

.

T h e p etitio n er t e s t i f

i ed th at trial co u n sel f

ailed to m ak e sev eral o b j ectio n s to th e S tate’s clo sin g arg u m en t. H e sp ecif ied th at trial co u n sel sh o u ld h av e o b j ected to th e S tate’s
claim th at th e p etitio n er o b tain ed th e car k ey s f ro m th e v ictim b ecau se th e testim o n y d id n o t

su p p o rt th at claim

. A cco rd in g to th e p etitio n er, th e v ictim testif ied th at h e d id n o t k n o w

w h ere th e p etitio n er o b tain ed th e k ey s. T h e issu e w as n o t raised o n ap p eal.

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at th e S tate also im

p ro p erly co m m en ted o n h is p o st-arrest
silen ce in clo sin g arg u m en t, b u t trial co u n sel d id n o t o b j ect an d th e issu e w as n o t p reserv ed

f o r ap p eal. In ad d itio n , th e p etitio n er said th at t h e S t a te “rep eated ly ” m isstated h is p rio r crim in al reco rd in clo sin g arg u m en t b y in d icatin g th at th e p etitio n er “h ad b een co n v icted o f

ag g rav ated b u rg laries an d p o ssessio n o f h an d g u n s,” w h en h e actu ally h ad p rio r co n v ictio n s f o r sex u al b attery

an d b u rg lary

.

-7-T h e p etitio n er claim ed th at th e trial co u rt sh o u ld h av e g iv en ad d itio n al lesserin clu d ed o f

f en se in stru c t i o n s, in clu d in g o n e f o r crim in ally n eg lig en t h o m icid e u n d er th e ch arg e o f seco n d d eg ree m u rd e r

. H o w e v e r , trial co u n sel m ad e n o attem p t to secu re th e ad d itio n al in stru ctio n s. T rial co u n sel n ev er b ro u g h t th e p etitio n er a co p y o f th e p ro p o sed j u ry in stru ctio n s f

o r h im to rev iew

. T h e p e t i t io n er said th at th e j u ry in stru ctio n s also

im p ro p erly sh if

ted th e b u rd en to th e d ef

en se. H e ex p lain ed th at th e co u rt in stru cted th e j u ry th at th e S tate d id n o t h av e to p ro v e ev ery elem en t o f th e crim e “if th ey f in d en o u g h to satisf

y th em .” T h e p etitio n er w an ted trial co u n sel to o b j ect to th e in stru ctio n , b u t h e d i d n o t a n d
th e issu e w as n o t ap p ealab le.

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at th e S tate, in its clo sin g arg u m en t, w en t b ey o n d th e p o in t

o f try in g to en f

o rce its th eo ry th at th e o f

f en se w as f

irst d eg ree m

u rd er to th e p o in t o f tellin g th e j u ry th at an y

th in g less th an f

irst d eg ree m

u rd er w o u ld b e th e eq u iv alen t o f n o t g u ilty

. H e said th at trial co u n sel d id n o t o b j ect to th e p ro secu to r’s statem en t. T h e p etiti o n er also
testif ied th at trial co u n sel f

ailed to su b p o en a w itn esses f o r th e su p p ressio n h earin g w h o se i d e n tif icatio n s o f h im h ad b een d o cu m en ted o n a v id eo tap e f o r a C o u rt T V p ro g r a m. H e

w an ted th o se w itn esses to co m e to co u rt “an d m ak e th at id en tif icatio n ag ain .” T h e p etitio n er ask ed trial co u n sel to su b p o en a th e w itn esses, b u t co u n sel d id n o t d o so

.

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at ap p ellate co u n s e l v isited h im in j ail o n ce, an d th ey d iscu ssed th e issu es h e w an ted to ap p eal. T h e p etitio n er w an ted to raise an issu e reg ard in g th e su p p ressio n o f a C o u rt T V v id eo tap e th at d o cu m en ted h is arrest an d id en t i f i c a t i o n

. A p p ellate co u n sel ask ed th e co u rt f o r an ex ten sio n o f tim e in o rd er to ad d th e issu e reg ard in g

su p p ressio n

. H o w ev er, th e issu e w as n ev er raised o n ap p eal. T h e p etitio n er also

co m p lai n e d t h at ap p ellate co u n sel n ev er relied o n S tate v

. E ly

, w h ich clarif ied j u ry in stru ctio n s o n lesser-in clu d ed o f f en ses.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , th e p etitio n er recalled th at th e co u rt c o n d u cted a j u ry -o u t
h earin g reg ard in g th e C o u rt T V v id eo tap e. T h e p etitio n er said th at h e h ad n ev er w atch ed
th e v id eo , b u t h is f

am ily w atch ed it an d to ld h im ab o u t it. T h e v id eo sh o w ed th e p etitio n er sittin g in o n e ro o m at th e p o lice statio n , an d K ev in Wisem an in th e n ex t ro o m m ak in g an id en tif icatio n f ro m a p h o to g rap h ic array

. H e asserted th at th e v id eo also sh o w ed h is arrest.

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at trial co u n sel relied o n th e d e f e n s e o f m istak en id en tif icatio n , a n d t h e p etitio n er testif ied at trial th at h e w as so m ew h ere else d u rin g th e crim es. E x p o u n d in g o n h is d irect ex am in atio n testim o n y , th e p etitio n er said th at h e d ro v e th e car o f h is f

ian cée, S h an d ra Jo n es, to th e h o m e o f h is f ri e n d

, G en o P ick en s, o n th e d ay

o f th e cr i me s a ro u n d 4 :3 0 p .m

. T h e p etitio n er lef t Jo n es’s car at P ick en s’ h o u se, an d th e

-8-p etitio n er’s b ro th er, M arv in Jack so n , p ick ed h im u p f ro m P ick en s’ h o u se an d to o k h im to 1

M arv in ’s h o u se in N o rth H av e n , w h ere h e stay ed “a sh o rt tim e.” T h e p etitio n er ack n o w led g ed th at th e testim o n y at trial estab lish ed th at Jo n es’s car w as u sed in th e

o f f en ses.

T h e p etitio n er testif

ied th at h is f

rien d

, D af

an y L o v e, p ick ed h im u p f ro m M arv in ’s
h o u se an d d ro v e h im to D y ersb u rg

. H e estim ated th at it to o k th em ab o u t an h o u r to g et to
D y ersb u rg

. T h e p etitio n er said th at, w h ile in D y ersb u rg , th ey v isited h is b ro th er, A n th o n y Jack so n , an d o th er p eo p le in th e area. T h e p etitio n er ad m itted th at th e o n ly p eo p le h e n am ed

at trial as b ein g in D y ersb u rg w ith h im w ere A n th o n y a n d L o v e

. T h e p etitio n er said th at,
in ad d itio n to h is b ro th er’s h o u se, th ey w en t to L o v e’s h o u se an d th en “to an o th er p lace.”

H e claim ed th at th ey ar r i v e d b ack in M em p h is aro u n d 1 0 :3 0 o r 1 1 :0 0 p .m

. H o w ev er, h e later said th at h e co u ld n o t rem em b er w h en th ey g o t h o me an d ack n o w led g ed th at a letter

h e sen t to trial co u n sel said th at th ey h ad arriv ed h o m e aro u n d 2 :0 0 a.m

.

T h e p etitio n er ack n o w led g e d th at h e w as p resen t in co u rt o n at least ten d ates an d

w o u ld h av e sp o k en to trial co u n sel o u tsid e th e co u rtro o m o n at least so m e o f

th o se d ates.
H e also ack n o w led g ed th at h e sp o k e to trial co u n sel th ro u g h o u t th e w eek -lo n g trial. T h e

p e t i tio n er said th at trial co u n sel n ev er w an ted h im to testif y

. H e ack n o w led g ed th at h e testif ied at trial th at th e trial co u rt “railro ad ed ” h im b y n o t allo w in g h im to p resen t h is alib i

w itn esses.

L eath a S co tt, th e p etitio n er’s m o th er, testif ied th at th e p etitio n er w as p resen t w ith h er earlier o n th e d ay o f th e o f f en ses. H o w ev er, n eith er trial co u n sel n o r an y o n e f ro m th e p u b lic
d ef en d er’s o f

f ice cam e to talk to h er ab o u t th e p etitio n er’s w h ereab o u ts. S co tt said th at sh e

w as at th e p etitio n er’s trial b u t h ad to leav e to atten d h er m o th er’s f u n eral. T rial co u n sel h ad
b een in f o rm ed th at sh e w as g o in g to th e f u n eral. H o w ev er, S co tt later testif ied th at sh e w as

n o t p re sen t at all f

o r th e p etitio n er’s trial. S h e said th at h er d au g h ters, D eb o rah A n n P atterso n an d D ian e M itch ell, an d h er so n s, R ick y S co tt an d M arv in Jack so n , atten d ed th e f u n eral w ith h er. A n th o n y Jack so n an d D af

an y L o v e d id n o t g o to th e f

u n eral.

S co tt testif

ied th at sh e liv ed n ex t-d o o r to th e p etitio n er’s g irlf rien d , S h an d ra Jo n es, b u t sh e d id n o t see th e p o lice arrest th e p etitio n er b ecau se sh e w as asleep

. S h e ex p lain ed
th at sh e h ad recen tly u n d erg o n e su rg ery an d h ad tak en “so m e real stro n g p ills an d th at p u t [ h er] to sleep .”

Some of the wit nes ses have the same la st name and wil l be re fe rr ed to by fi rs t name onl y at ti m es 1

for cl ar it y. We mean n o di sr esp ect by thi s pr act ic e.

-9-M arv in Jack so n , th e p etitio n er’s b ro th er, testif ied th at, o n th e d ay o f th e o f f en ses, th e

p etitio n er called an d ask ed h im to p ick h im u p at G en o P ick en s’ h o u se. H e w en t to P ick en s’

w h ere th ey

all talk ed “f

o r a m in u te.” A cco rd in g to M arv in

, th e p etitio n er said th at h e w as h av in g so m e issu es w ith h is g irlf rien d , “F ay ,” an d th at h e p lan n ed to g o to D y ersb u rg th at
d ay

. M arv in recalled th at th e p eti t i o n er to ld P ick en s th at “F ay ” w as g o in g to co m e b y to

p ick u p h er car an d ask ed th at P ick en s g iv e th e car k ey s to “F ay .” S o m etim e b etw een 4 :0 0

an d 5 :0 0 p .m ., M arv in to o k th e p etitio n er to M arv in ’s h o m e in N o rth H av en , w h ich w as

tw en ty m in u tes aw ay

. T h e p etitio n er later sp o k e to D af an y L o v e o n th e p h o n e, an d sh e cam e

to M arv in ’s h o u se f

o r “a f ew m in u tes.” L o v e an d th e p etitio n er lef t h is h o u se aro u n d 5 :0 0

o r 6 :0 0 p .m

. M arv in talk ed to th e p e t i t i o n e r later th at n ig h t o n ce th e p etitio n er m ad e it to
th e h o m e o f

th eir b ro th er, A n th o n y , in D y ersb u rg

.

M arv in testif

ied th at h e m et w ith trial co u n sel p rio r to trial an d co u n sel “led [ h im ] to
b eliev e th at h e w as d o in g all h e co u ld to rep resen t [ th e p etitio n er]

. . . in th e b est w ay th at
h e p o ssib ly co u ld

. B u t h e d id j u st th e o p p o site.” M arv in stated th at h e to ld trial co u n sel th at
th e p etitio n er w as w ith h im o n th e d ay o f th e o f f en ses. H e also to ld trial co u n sel th at h e an d

s e v e ral o f th e p etitio n er’s f am ily m em

b ers w o u ld b e trav elin g to C h icag o f o r a f u n e r a l
d u rin g th e w eek o f th e trial an d w an te d t o b e ab le to testif y b ef o re th ey lef

t. H e said th at
trial co u n sel assu red h im th at th ey w o u l d g et a ch an ce to testif y b ef o re th ey lef

t o n Wed n esd ay n ig h t b u t, w h en co u rt en d ed f o r th e d ay o n Wed n esd ay , co u n sel to ld M arv in th at
h e w as g o in g to th e b ack to talk to th e p etitio n er an d w o u ld b e b ack

, b u t h e n ev er retu rn ed

.

O n cro ss an d red irect ex am in atio n s, M arv in ad m itted th at h e w as co n v icted in 2 0 0 4
f o r b ein g a co n v icted f

elo n in p o ssessio n o f

a h an d g u n . H e also h ad p rio r co n v ictio n s f o r

p o ssessio n o f a co n tro lled su b stan ce w ith in ten t to sell, as w ell as d riv in g o f f en ses. M arv in
clarif ied th at, h e co n tacted th e p etitio n er in D y ersb u rg th e n ig h t o f th e o f f en ses b y callin g A n th o n y ’s cell p h o n e. M arv in ad m itted th at h e d id n o t g o to th e p o lice w h en h e learn ed th at
th e p etitio n er w as in j ail to in f o rm th em th at th e p etitio n er h ad b een in D y ersb u rg at th e tim e

o f th e m u rd er. H e ack n o w led g ed th at h e also d i d n o t a t t e n d th e p etitio n er’s p relim in ary h earin g o r a r r a i g n m en t to clear th e p etitio n er’s n am e. H o w ev er, h e said th at h e to ld trial

co u n sel th at th e p etitio n er w as w ith h im o n th e d ay o f th e crim e u p u n til ap p ro x im ately an h o u r b ef o re it h ap p en ed

. M arv in claim ed th at h e w as p resen t th e f irst th ree d ay s o f trial, b u t
h e co u ld n o t recall an y sp ecif ic w itn esses w h o testif

ied o r rem em

b er w atch in g an y o f it.

D af an y L o v e testif

ied th at sh e h ad recen tly b een released f ro m cu s t o d y o n ch arg es

o f p o ssessio n o f co cain e an d m arij u an a. S h e said th at, o n th e d ay o f th e o f f en ses, sh e m et
th e p etitio n er at M arv in ’s h o u se an d to o k h im to h er h o u se in D y e r s b u r g

. S h e said th at it

w as ab o u t an h o u r’s d riv e f ro m M em p h is to D y ersb u rg

. Wh ile in D y ersb u rg , t h e y d ro v e

aro u n d an d talk ed t o a f e w p eo p le, in clu d in g A n th o n y Jack so n

. L o v e th en d ro v e th e

p etitio n er b ack to M arv in ’s h o u se, d ro p p in g h im o f f aro u n d 9 :0 0 p .m

.

-10-L o v e testif ied th at, at so m e p o in t b ef o re th e p etitio n er’s trial, tw o in v estig ato rs g o t
h er o u t o f co u rt an d to o k h er to th e p o lice d ep artm en t f o r q u estio n in g

. L o v e said th at sh e

to ld th e in v est i g ato rs th at sh e w as w ith th e p etitio n er o n th e d ay o f th e o f f en ses. S h e claim ed th at th e in v estig ato rs th en said th ey w ere “n o t g o in g to reco rd [ th eir co n v ersatio n ]

an d w e[ re] j u st g o in g to act lik e th is

. . . n ev er h ap p en ed .” L o v e stated th at sh e sp o k e to trial

co u n sel o n th e p h o n e p ri o r t o t rial, an d h e ask ed if sh e “w as g o in g to b e ab le to co m e to

co u rt f o r [ th e p e titio n er] .” H o w ev er, sh e d id n o t g o to co u rt b ecau se sh e w as n ev er “su b p o en a[ ed ] . . . w ith th e co u rt d ate an d ev ery th in g .”

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , L o v e ack n o w led g ed th at sh e w as an im p o rtan t alib i w itn ess b ecau se sh e w as w ith th e p etitio n er at th e tim e o f th e m u rd er, b u t sh e d id n o t co m e to trial
b ecau se sh e “d id n ’t g et s u b p o e n a ed [ an d ] d id n ’t k n o w th e ex act d ate.” L o v e stated th at,
af ter sh e d ro p p ed th e p etitio n er o f f at M arv in ’s h o u se, h e called h er o n h er w ay h o m e. L o v e elab o rated th at th e tw o in v estig ato rs w h o rem o v ed h e r f ro m co u rt w ere f

ro m th e d istrict

atto rn ey ’s o f

f ice, an d th ey to o k h er to th e p o lice statio n in D y ersb u rg

. L o v e d en ied tellin g th e in v estig ato rs th at th e p etitio n er w a s a f r i en d o f h er in carcerated h u sb an d

, th at sh e h ad

n ev er talk ed to trial co u n sel, an d th at sh e co u ld n o t rem em b er th e ev en ts o f th e d ay o f th e

o f f en ses.

A n th o n y Jack so n , th e p etitio n er’s b ro th er, te s t i f i e d th at th e p etitio n er an d D af an y L o v e w ere at h is h o u se in D y ersb u rg f ro m 6 :3 0 o r 7 :0 0 p .m

. u n til 8 :3 0 o r 9 :0 0 p .m

. o n th e d ay o f th e o f

f en ses. D u rin g th e tim e th e p etitio n er w as at A n th o n y ’s h o u se, th eir b ro th er, M arv in

, called lo o k in g f

o r th e p etitio n er. A n th o n y sp o k e to M arv in

, b u t th e p etitio n er d id

n o t b ecau se h e “w as in th e b ack ro o m .” A n th o n y said th at h e to l d t r i a l c o u n sel th at th e

p etitio n er w as w ith h im at th e tim e o f th e o f f en ses, an d co u n sel w a s “ s u p p o sed to

. . .

su b p o en a[ ] [ h im ] to co u rt, b u t [ h e] n ev er g o t su b p o en aed [ .] ” H e d id n o t g o to co u rt o n h is

o w n acco rd b ecau se h e w as in carcerated in D y ersb u rg .”

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , A n th o n y ad m itted th at h e h ad sev eral p rio r f elo n y co n v ictio n s f o r sellin g d ru g s an d w as p resen tly in carcerated

. H e said th at, o n A u g u st 7 , 2 0 0 1 , th e d ay

o f th e o f f en ses, h e w as at h is h o u se all d ay sellin g co cain e. A n th o n y stated th at h e d id n o t
h av e an y co n v ersatio n w ith th e p etitio n er an d L o v e w h ile th ey w ere at h is h o u se, an d th ey stay ed in th e b ack ro o m

th e en tire tim e th ey

w ere th ere. H e ack n o w led g ed th at h e d id n o t

co n tact th e p o lice to t e ll th em th at th e p etitio n er h ad b een w ith h im at th e tim e o f th e

o f f en ses. H e ex p lain ed th at th e reaso n h e d id n o t co n tact th e p o lice o n h is b ro th er’s b eh alf

w as b ecau se h e “w as d o in g illeg al th in g s [ h im ] self .” H o w ev er, h e said th at h e called trial

co u n sel in A u g u st o r S ep tem b er 2 0 0 2 an d to ld h im th at h e h ad b een w ith th e p etitio n er o n th e d ay o f th e o f

f en ses. T rial co u n sel to ld A n t h o n y th at h e w o u ld su b p o en a h im f o r trial,
b u t h e n ev er d id

.

-11-R o n n ie M cWilliam s, a crim in al in v estig ato r in th e G an g U n it o f th e D istrict A tto rn ey

G en eral’s O f

f ice, testi f i e d th at, in 2 0 0 4

, h e w as assig n ed to in terv iew D af an y L o v e w ith

reg ard to th is case as sh e w as “su p p o sed to b e an alib i f o r [ th e p etitio n er] .” M cWilliam s an d

an o th er in v estig ato r, R .T

. G o o d w in

, lo cated L o v e in th e D y er C o u n ty Jail an d in terv iew ed

h er. L o v e to ld th em th at, alt h o u g h sh e co u ld n o t rem em b er w h ere sh e w as o n A u g u st 7

, 2 0 0 1

, sh e k n e w th at sh e w as n o t w ith th e p etitio n er. S h e to ld th em th at sh e an d th e

p etitio n er h ad n ev er h ad a relatio n sh ip

, an d th e p etitio n er w as a f rien d o f h er h u sb an d

, w h o

w as in carcerated

. M cWilliam s an d G o o d w in in f o rm ed L o v e th at th e p etitio n e r’s co u n sel

h ad f iled a n o tice statin g th at sh e w o u ld testif y as an alib i w itn ess f

o r th e p etitio n er, b u t sh e said th at “sh e k n ew n o th in g ab o u t testif y in g .” M cWilliam s said th at h e an d G o o d w in ask ed

L o v e certain q u estio n s to test h er m em o ry an d f o u n d h er recall ab o u t d ates to b e co rrect. H e recalled th at L o v e w as f

rien d ly d u rin g th e in terv iew

. M cWilliam s an d G o o d w in p rep ared

an d sig n ed a m em o ran d u m su m m arizin g th eir in terv iew w ith L o v e.

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at h e h ad p racticed law f o r th irty y ears an d th at th e m aj o rity

o f h is p ractice w as crim in al d ef en se. T rial co u n sel ex p lain ed th at, in ad d itio n to h is p riv ate

p ractice, h e d id p art-tim e w o rk f o r th e p u b lic d ef

en d er’s o f f ice. A s p art o f h is w o rk w ith th e

p u b lic d ef

en d er’s o f

f ice, trial co u n sel serv ed o n th e cap ital d ef en se team

, w h i c h w as

a s s i g n e d t h e p etitio n er’s case b ecau se it w as n o t clear w h eth er th e S tate w o u ld seek th e d eath p en alty

. Wh en th e S tate d ecid ed n o t to seek th e d eath p en alty

, trial co u n sel o p ted to
k eep th e p etitio n er’s case b ecau se h e h ad b een w o rk in g o n it f o r so lo n g , an d h e rep resen ted
th e p etitio n er u n til th e en d o f th e case. T rial co u n sel recalled th at th e p etitio n er an d h is co

d ef en d an t w ere tried to g eth er.

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at h e m et w ith th e p etitio n er p rio r to trial an d h ad “a lo t o f

f ace-to -f ace co m m u n icatio n ” w ith h im

. H e v isited th e p etitio n er “[ s] ev eral tim es” in j ail an d

sp o k e w ith h im at each o f th e ap p ro x im ately tw en ty co u rt ap p earan ces. T rial co u n sel f elt
th at h e an d th e p etitio n er h ad a “p retty g o o d ” relatio n sh ip an d w ere ab le to co m m u n icate

w ith o n e an o th er. B ased o n th e p etitio n er’s assertio n s reg ard in g w h ere h e w as at th e tim e

o f th e o f f e n s e , t r ial co u n sel p lan n ed to p resen t an alib i d ef en se at trial. T h e p etitio n er

p ro v id ed trial co u n sel w ith th e n am e o f D af an y L o v e f

o r h is alib i w itn ess. T rial co u n sel’s

in v estig ato r w en t to D y ersb u rg to lo cate L o v e b u t w as u n ab le to f in d h er.

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at h e w as u ltim ately ab le to g et in co n tact w ith L o v e b ecau se th e S tate w as ab le to lo cate h er af ter co u n sel g av e n o tice th at h e w o u ld b e p resen tin g an alib i
d ef en se. H e ex p lain ed th at th e S tate’s in v estig ato rs f o u n d L o v e w h en sh e ap p eared f o r co u rt

o n a p en d in g case. T rial co u n sel o b tain ed a co p y o f th e statem en t L o v e g av e to th e S tate’s
in v estig ato rs an d sp o k e to o n e o f th e in v estig ato rs reg ard in g th e in terv iew

. T rial co u n sel’s

in v estig ato r also talk ed to L o v e, an d th ey d eterm in ed th at L o v e w o u ld n o t b e a g o o d alib i

w itn ess b ecau se “ s h e s aid sh e d id n ’t h av e an y k n o w led g e o f w h at w e w ere talk in g ab o u t;

-12-th at sh e w as n o t w ith h im ; sh e w as n o w h ere aro u n d h im

. . . . [ S ] h e to tally d en ied th e w h o le

th in g

. S o th at’s n o t an alib i.” T r i a l c o u n sel said th at L o v e w as th e o n ly alib i w itn ess th e

p etitio n er p ro v id ed

.

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at th e p etitio n er’s b ro th er, M arv in

, w as n o t an actu al alib i

w itn ess as h e o n ly saw th e p etitio n er earlier o n th e d ay o f th e o f f en ses an d n o t at th e tim e in q u estio n

. T rial co u n sel said th at, h ad M arv in b een ab le to p ro v id e a n a l i b i f o r th e

p etitio n er, co u n sel “w o u ld h av e h ad h im u n d er su b p o en a.” T rial co u n sel d id n o t rem em b er

sp eak in g to an y o n e d u rin g trial w h o in d icated t h ey co u ld p ro v id e th e p etitio n er w ith an alib i.

T rial co u n sel d id n o t recall ev er talk in g to th e p etitio n er’s b ro th er, A n th o n y , o r an y m em b ers

o f th e p etitio n er’s f

am ily b ein g p resen t o r talk in g to h im d u rin g trial.

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at h e co n f

erred w ith th e p etitio n er th ro u g h o u t th e en tire trial,

an d th e p etitio n er p ro v id ed in p u t. H e d iscu ssed w ith th e p etitio n er h is rig h t to testif y an d
ad v ised th e p etitio n er n o t to testif y , b u t th e p etitio n er d ecid ed to testif y

. T rial co u n sel n o ted
th at t h e p etitio n er w as id en tif ied b y m u ltip le w itn esses d u rin g th e trial as o n e o f th e

p erp etrato rs.

O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , trial co u n sel test i fi e d t ha t t he pe titio n er co m

m u n icated th at h is
b ro th er, M arv in

, h ad b een w ith h im at least p art o f th e d ay o f th e o f f en ses. T rial co u n sel’s

in v estig ato r talk ed to an y o n e th e p etitio n er m en tio n ed , an d it w as d eterm in ed th at M arv in

w as n o t an alib i w itn ess o r h e w o u ld h av e b een su b p o en aed f o r th e trial. T rial co u n sel w as ask ed ab o u t a su p p lem en tal statem en t p rep ared b y O f f icer P ren tice Jo lly o n A u g u st 8

, 2 0 0 1

, in w h ich it w as n o ted th at D an a P o rter saw th e v ictim ly in g o n th e g ro u n d at a M ap co g as statio n b u t d id n o t see th e o f f en se. E v id en tly

, P o rter o p in ed th at th e k iller m ay h av e b een

a p erso n called “Ju n io r.” T rial co u n sel w as su re th at h is o f f ice m ad e ef

f o rts to f in d P o rter.

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at h e f

iled a m o tio n to su p p r e s s th e id en tif icatio n o f th e

p etitio n er f

ro m a p h o to g rap h ic lin eu p , an d th e trial co u rt co n d u cted a h earin g o n th e issu e. H e co u ld n o t recall w h eth er th e w itn esses w h o id en tif ied th e p etitio n er w ere p resen t at th e h earin g

. H e recalled th at S erg ean t F it z p a t r ick testif ied at th e h earin g b ecau se “it w as

actu ally a M o tio n to S u p p ress th e P h o to S p read th at w as actu ally u sed to id en ti f y h i m is

w h at it w as.” T rial co u n sel attem p ted to ad m it at trial a v id eo f ro m C o u rt T V

, b u t th e trial

co u rt d id n o t allo w it.

T rial co u n sel ack n o w led g ed th at th e p etitio n er f iled a co m

p lain t ag ain st h im o n Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , w ith th e B o ard o f P ro f essio n al R esp o n sib ility

, b u t h e ex p lain ed th at it w as w ith

reg ard to co u n sel’s p erso n al m arital p ro b lem s an d n o t th e w ay h e w as h an d lin g th e case. H e said th at th e B o ard su m m arily d ism issed th e co m

p lain t.

-13-T rial co u n sel testif ied th at t h e p e titio n er d id n o t m ak e an y statem en ts to th e p o lice

p rio r to trial. H e n o ted th at, w h en a d ef en d an t elects to testif

y a n d h a s mad e n o p rev io u s

statem en ts, p ro secu to rs o f ten p o in t o u t th at it is th e d ef en d an t’s f

irst tim e tellin g a n y o n e

w h at h ap p en ed

. T rial co u n sel said th at su ch tactics carry v ery little w eig h t an d o b j ectin g to
th e p ro secu to r’s q u estio n w o u ld o n ly d raw m o re atten tio n to it.

A f ter th e co n clu sio n o f

th e p ro o f , th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt en tered a w ritten o rd er d en y in g relief

.

A N A L Y S IS

O n ap p eal, th e p etitio n e r arg u es th at th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt erred in d en y in g h is

p etitio n b ecau se h e receiv ed th e in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel at trial an d o n ap p eal.

P o st-co n v ictio n relief “sh all b e g ran ted w h en th e co n v ictio n o r sen ten ce is v o id o r v o id ab le
b ecau se o f th e ab rid g m en t o f an y rig h t g u aran teed b y th e C o n stitu tio n o f T en n essee o r th e C o n stitu tio n o f

th e U n ited S tates.” T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 0 -3 0 -1 0 3 (2 0 0 6 ). T h e p etitio n er b ears t h e b u r d e n o f p ro v in g f actu al alleg atio n s b y clear an d co n v in cin g ev id en ce. Id

. §

4 0 -3 0 -1 1 0 (f

). Wh en an ev id en tiary h ear i n g i s h eld in th e p o st-co n v ictio n settin g , th e f in d in g s o f f

act m ad e b y th e co u rt are co n clu siv e o n a p p e a l u n l ess th e ev id en ce

p rep o n d erates ag ain st th em

. S ee Wiley v

. S tate, 1 8 3 S .W.3 d 3 1 7

, 3 2 5 (T en n

. 2 0 0 6 ). Wh en

rev iew in g f

actu al issu es, th e ap p ellate co u rt w ill n o t rew eig h th e ev id en ce an d w ill in stead
d ef er to th e trial co u rt’s f

in d in g s as to th e cred ib ility o f w itn esses o r th e w eig h t o f t h e i r testim o n y

. Id

. H o w ev er, rev iew o f a trial co u rt’s ap p licatio n o f th e law to th e f

acts o f th e

case is d e n o vo , w ith n o p resu m

p tio n o f co rrectn ess. S ee R u f f v

. S tate, 9 7 8 S .W.2 d 9 5

, 9 6 (T en n

. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e issu e o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n s e l

, w h ich p resen ts m ix ed

q u estio n s o f f

act an d law

, is rev iew ed d e n o vo , w ith a p resu m

p tio n o f co rrectn ess g iv en o n ly

to t h e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt’s f in d in g s o f f

act. S ee F ield s v

. S tate, 4 0 S .W.3 d 4 5 0

, 4 5 8 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ); B u rn s v . S tate, 6 S .W.3 d 4 5 3 , 4 6 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ).

T h e rig h t to ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f c o u n sel is saf eg u ard ed b y th e C o n stitu tio n s o f
b o th th e U n ited S ta t e s an d th e S tate o f T en n essee. S ee U .S

. C o n st. A m en d

. V I; T en n

. C o n st. art. I, § 9

. T o estab lish a claim o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel, th e p etitio n er h as th e b u rd en to sh o w b o th th at trial co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce w a s d e f

i c i en t an d th at co u n sel’s
d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce p rej u d iced th e o u tco m e o f th e p ro ceed in g

. S trick lan d v

. Wash in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S

. 6 6 8

, 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ); s e e S t a t e v

. T ay lo r, 9 6 8 S .W.2 d 9 0 0

, 9 0 5 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 7 ) (n o tin g th at sam e s tan d ard f o r d eterm in in g in ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel th at is

ap p lied in f

ed eral cases also ap p lies in T en n essee). T h e S trick lan d stan d ard is a tw o -p ro n g

test:

-14-F irst, th e [ p e t i t i o n er] m u st sh o w th at co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce w as d ef

icien t.
T h is req u ires sh o w in g th at co u n sel m ad e erro rs so serio u s th at co u n sel w as

n o t f u n ctio n in g as th e “co u n sel” g u aran teed th e [ p etitio n er] b y th e S ix th

A m en d m en t. S eco n d

, th e [ p etitio n er] mu s t s h o w th at th e d ef icien t

p erf o rm an ce p rej u d iced th e d ef en se. T h is req u ires sh o w in g th at co u n sel ’ s

erro rs w ere so serio u s as to d ep riv e th e [ p etitio n er] o f a f air trial, a trial w h o se

resu lt is reliab le.

4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 7

.

T h e d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce p ro n g o f th e test is satisf ied b y sh o w in g th at “co u n sel’s

acts o r o m issio n s w ere so serio u s as to f all b elo w an o b

j ectiv e stan d ard o f reaso n ab len ess

u n d e r p r e v ailin g p ro f

essio n al n o rm s.” G o ad v

. S tate, 9 3 8 S .W.2 d 3 6 3

, 3 6 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 6 ) (citin g S trick lan d

, 4 6 6 U .S

. at 6 8 8 ; B ax ter v

. R o se, 5 2 3 S .W.2 d 9 3 0

, 9 3 6 (T en n

. 1 9 7 5 )).

T h e rev iew in g co u rt m

u st in d u lg e a stro n g p resu m p t i o n t h a t th e co n d u ct o f co u n sel f alls

w ith in th e ran g e o f reaso n ab le p ro f essio n al assistan ce, see S trick lan d

, 4 6 6 U .S

. at 6 9 0

, an d

m ay n o t seco n d -g u ess th e tactical an d strateg ic ch o ices m ad e b y trial co u n sel u n less th o se ch o ices w ere u n in f

o rm ed b ecau se o f in ad eq u ate p rep aratio n

. S ee H ellard v

. S tat e , 6 2 9

S

. W

. 2 d 4

, 9 (T en n

. 1 9 8 2 ). T h e p rej u d ice p ro n g o f th e test is satisf ied b y sh o w i n g a

reaso n ab le p ro b ab ility

, i.e., a “p ro b a b i lity su f f icien t to u n d erm in e co n f id en ce in th e

o u tco m e,” th at “b u t f

o r co u n sel’s u n p ro f

essio n al erro rs, th e resu lt o f th e p ro ceed in g w o u ld

h av e b een d if

f eren t.” S trick lan d

, 4 6 6 U .S

. at 6 9 4

. T h e sam e p rin cip les ap p ly in d eterm in in g th e ef f ectiv en ess o f tria l a n d ap p ellate co u n sel. C am p b ell v

. S tate, 9 0 4 S .W.2 d 5 9 4

, 5 9 6 (T en n . 1 9 9 5 ).

I. A lleg a tio n s A g a in st T ria l C o u n sel

A . A lib i D ef

en se

T h e p etitio n er’s f

irst an d p rim ary arg u m en t is th at trial co u n sel ren d ered in ef f ectiv e assistan ce f

o r f ailin g to in v estig ate all f

acts an d circu m stan ces su p p o rtin g an alib i d ef en se

an d p resen tin g su ch d ef

en se at trial. S p ecif

ically

, h e asserts th at trial co u n sel sh o u ld h av e called D af

an y L o v e, L eath a S co tt, M arv in Jack so n , an d A n th o n y Jack so n to testif y at trial.

H e also asserts th at trial co u n sel d id n o t sen d an in v estig ato r to p erso n ally in terv iew L o v e b u t in stead relied o n th e S tate’s in v estig ato rs’ rep o rt.

T rial co u n sel testif

ied th at h e p lan n ed to p resen t an alib i d ef en se at trial b ecau se o f
th e p etitio n er’s assertio n s reg ard in g w h ere h e w as at th e tim e o f th e o f f en ses. T rial co u n sel
said th at th e p etitio n er p ro v id ed th e n am e o f D af an y L o v e as h is o n ly a l i b i w itn ess. T rial

co u n sel’s in v estig ato r attem p ted to lo cate L o v e b u t w as u n ab le to f in d h er. H o w ev er, af

ter

-15-trial co u n sel g av e n o tice th at h e w o u ld b e p resen tin g an a l i b i d e f e n s e, th e S tate’s
in v estig ato rs w ere ab le t o l o c a te L o v e, an d co u n sel o b tain ed a co p y o f h er statem en t an d

sp o k e to o n e o f th e S ta t e ’ s i nv estig ato rs reg ard in g th e in terv iew

. T rial co u n sel’s in v estig ato r

w as also ab le to sp eak to L o v e, an d th ey d eterm in ed t h a t s h e w o u ld n o t b e a g o o d alib i

w itn ess b ecau se “sh e said sh e d id n ’t h av e an y k n o w led g e o f

w h at w e w ere talk in g ab o u t;
th at sh e w as n o t w ith h im ; sh e w as n o w h ere aro u n d h im

. . . . [ S ] h e to tally d en ied th e w h o le
th in g . S o th at’s n o t an alib i.”

A t th e ev id en tiary h earin g , L o v e testif ied th at sh e an d th e p etit i o n e r w ere in

D y ersb u rg at th e tim e o f th e o f f en ses an d th at th e S tate’s in v estig ato rs w h o in terv iew ed h er lied b y say in g th at sh e h ad to ld th em sh e w as n o t w ith th e p etitio n er. L o v e also testif ied th at
sh e sp o k e to trial co u n sel o n th e p h o n e p rio r to trial, an d h e ask ed h er if sh e w o u ld testif y

o n th e p etitio n er’s b eh alf . T h e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt f o u n d L o v e’s testim o n y n o t cred ib le
th at sh e w as w ith th e p etitio n er at th e tim e o f th e o f f en ses an d th at th e S tate’s in v estig ato rs lied b y say in g sh e to ld th em sh e w as n o t w ith th e p etitio n er. T h eref o re, w e can n o t co n clu d e th at trial co u n sel p erf

o rm ed d ef

icien tly o r th at th e f

ailu re to h av e L o v e testif

y at trial cau sed
th e p etitio n er an y

p rej u d ice.

T h e p etitio n er asserts th at h is m o th er , L e a t h a S co tt, sh o u ld h av e b een called as an

a l i b i w itn ess. H o w ev er, S co tt’s testim o n y at th e ev id en tiary h earin g estab lish ed t h a t

, alth o u g h w ith th e p etitio n er earlier in th e d ay , sh e w as n o t w ith th e p etitio n er n ear th e tim e

o f th e o f f en ses. S h e h ad also tak en so m e “real stro n g p ills” an d w as asleep at th e tim e th e

p o lice arrested th e p etitio n er. S h e also ack n o w led g ed o n cro ss-ex am in atio n th at sh e w as n o t

p resen t f o r an y o f th e p etitio n er’s trial. We can n o t co n clu d e t h a t th e f ailu re to h av e S co tt
testif y c a u s e d th e p etitio n er an y p rej u d ice as h er testim o n y w as n o t relev an t to th e

p etitio n er’s alib i.

T h e p etitio n er asserts th at h is b ro th er, A n th o n y Jack so n , sh o u ld h av e b een called as

an alib i w itn ess. A n th o n y testif ied th at th e p etitio n er an d L o v e w ere a t h i s h o u se in

D y e r s b u r g f

ro m 6 :3 0 o r 7 :0 0 p .m

. u n til 8 :3 0 o r 9 :0 0 p .m

. o n th e d ay o f th e o f f en ses. H o w ev er, A n th o n y ad m itted th at h e d id n o t g o to th e p o lice af ter th e p etitio n er w as arrested

to in f o rm th em th at th e p etitio n er co u ld n o t h av e co m m itted th e o f f e n s e s

. T h e p o stco n v ictio n co u rt f

o u n d A n th o n y ’ s t e s t i m ony not cred ib le; th eref o re, w e can n o t co n clu d e th at
th e f ailu re to h av e A n th o n y

testif y at trial cau sed th e p etitio n er an y p rej u d ice.

T h e p etitio n er also asserts th at h is b ro th er, M arv in Jack so n , sh o u ld h av e b een called

as an alib i w itn ess. H o w ev er, M arv in ’s testim o n y estab lish ed th at h e w as w ith th e p etitio n er earlier o n th e d ay

o f th e o f f en ses, b u t n o t at th e tim e o f th e o f f en ses. M arv in testif

ied th at
h e called A n th o n y ’s cell p h o n e later th at ev en in g an d sp o k e to th e p etitio n er w h ile h e w as in D y ersb u rg

. H o w ev er, A n th o n y testif ied th at o n l y h e , a n d n o t th e p etitio n er, sp o k e to

-16-M arv in w h en h e called

. T rial co u n sel testif ied th at h e w o u ld h av e su b p o en aed M arv in to
testif y at trial h ad h e b een ab le to p ro v id e th e p etitio n er w ith an alib i. T h e p o st-co n v ictio n

co u rt accred ited co u n sel’s testim o n y ; as su ch

, w e can n o t co n clu d e th at t r i a l c ou n sel ren d ered
d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce f

o r f ailin g to h av e M arv in testif y , o r th at su ch cau sed th e p etitio n er

p rej u d ice.

T h e p etitio n er also in sin u ates th at h e w as f o rced to testif

y b ecau se trial co u n sel d id

n o t p resen t h is alib i d ef

en se. H o w ev er, th e p etitio n er ad m itted at th e h earin g th at it w as h is
d ecisio n to testif

y an d th at h is testif

y in g w as alw a y s a p o s sib ility g o in g in to th e trial.

B . J u ry In stru ctio n

T h e p etitio n er arg u es th at trial co u n sel ren d ered in ef f ectiv e assistan ce b y

f ailin g to

o b j ect to an in ap p ro p riate j u ry in stru ctio n o n circu m stan tial ev id en ce an d f ailin g to p reserv e th e issu e f

o r d irect ap p eal. H e asserts th at th e g iv en ch arg e, “‘It is n o t n ecessary th at each

p articu lar f

act b e p ro v ed b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t if en o u g h are p ro v ed to satisf y th e j u ry

o f all th e f

acts n ecessary to co n stitu te th e crim e ch arg ed [ ,] ’” allo w ed th e j u ry to “f in d g u ilt
b ased u p o n a d e g ree o f p ro o f b elo w th at req u ired b y th e C o n stitu tio n .” T h e S tate asserts
th at th e p etitio n er h as w aiv ed th e issu e f o r f ailin g to in clu d e th e trial tran scrip t in w h ich th e in stru ctio n w as g iv en o r a co p y o f th e in stru ctio n in th e ap p ellate reco rd

.

We ag ree w ith th e S tate th at th e p etitio n er h as w aiv ed th is issu e f o r f ailin g to en su re

a co m p lete reco rd w as p ro v id ed f o r o u r rev iew

. A t th e co n clu sio n o f th e p o s t

- c o n v i ctio n h earin g , th e p etitio n er’s atto rn ey ask ed th e co u rt to en ter as ex h ib its tran scrip ts o f th e

su p p ressio n h earin g an d trial. T h e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt in tro d u c e d a t ran scrip t o f th e

su p p ressio n h earin g as E x h ib it 9 an d th e trial as E x h ib it 1 0 . T h e co u rt n o ted th at th e trial

tran scrip t w as th ree v o lu m es. H o w ev er, o n ly th e su p p ress io n h earin g an d f irst v o lu m e o f
th e trial tran scri p t a r e i n clu d ed in th e ap p ellate reco rd

, n eith er o f w h ich co n tain th e trial

co u rt’s ch arg e to th e j u ry

. In h is b rief

, th e p etitio n er rep eated ly ref eren ces v o lu m es V an d

V I o f th e trial tran scrip t. It is th e d u ty o f th e ap p ealin g p arty to p rep are an ad eq u ate reco rd

f o r ap p ellate rev iew

. T en n . R . A p p . P . 2 4 (b ). “Wh en a p arty seek s ap p ellate rev iew th ere is a d u ty to p rep are a reco rd w h ich co n v ey s a f air, accu rate an d co m

p lete acco u n t o f w h at

tran sp ired w ith resp ect to th e issu es f o rm in g th e b asis o f th e ap p eal.” S tate v

. B allard

, 8 5 5
S .W.2 d 5 5 7

, 5 6 0 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ). In th e ab sen ce o f an ad eq u ate reco rd o n ap p eal, th is co u rt

m u st p resu m e th at th e trial co u rt’s actio n s are co rrect. S tate v

. O o d y , 8 2 3 S .W.2 d 5 5 4

, 5 5 9 (T en n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ).

Wav ier n o tw ith stan d in g , th e in stru cti o n , as reco u n ted b y th e p etitio n er, w as

su b stan tially sim ilar to a c h a r g e o n circu m stan tial ev id en ce ap p ro v ed b y o u r co u rts. S ee S tate v

. B an e, 8 5 3 S .W.2 d 4 8 3

, 4 8 7 -8 8 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ); S tate v

. R ay m o n d D o u g las M y ers, S r.,

-17-N o

. M 2 0 0 3 -0 1 0 9 9 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 4 WL 9 1 1 2 8 0

, at * 6 -7 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. A p r

. 2 9

,

2 0 0 4 )

, p e rm

. to ap p eal d en ied (T en n

. N o v

. 8

, 2 0 0 4 ); S tate v

. P h illip M

. M u llin s, N o

. M 2 0 0 2 -0 2 9 7 7 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 3 WL 2 3 0 2 1 4 0 2

, at * 2 -3 (T en n

. C ri m. A p p

. D ec. 2 9

, 2 0 0 3 ), p erm

. to ap p eal d en ied (T en n

. Ju n e 1

, 2 0 0 4 ); S tate v

. T rav is J

. W o o d s, N o

. E 2 0 0 1 -0 1 0 2 7 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 3 WL 2 1 6 6 3 6 8 2

, at * 6 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. Ju ly 1 6

, 2 0 0 3 ),

p erm

. to ap p eal d en ied (T en n

. D ec. 8

, 2 0 0 3 ). A s su ch

, th e p etitio n er h as f ailed to p ro v e th at
trial co u n sel p erf

o rm ed d ef

icien tly o r th at an y

d ef icien cy cau sed h im

p rej u d ice.

C . P rio r C o n v ictio n s

T h e p etitio n er arg u es th at trial co u n sel ren d ered in ef f ectiv e assistan ce b y f

ailin g to

o b j ect to th e in tro d u ctio n o f h is p rio r sex u al b attery

co n v ictio n o n cro ss-ex am in atio n . H e

asserts th at th e f

if teen -y ear-o ld co n v ictio n h ad v e r y min im al p ro b ativ e v alu e, an d “[ c] o u n sel’s f

ailu re to o b

j ect t o t h e a d missio n

. . . w as u n d o u b ted ly p rej u d icial to [ th e

p etitio n er] ’s cred ib ility in th e ey es o f th e j u ro rs.” T h e S t a t e a r g u es th at th e p etitio n er h as

w aiv ed th e issu e f

o r f ailin g to p resen t a n ad eq u ate reco rd f o r o u r rev iew an d th at th e

p etitio n er f

ailed to p resen t an y ev id en ce at th e ev id en tiary h earin g to estab lish th at th e p rio r

co n v ictio n w as im

p ro p erly u sed d u rin g cro ss-ex am in atio n o r p rej u d iced h is case.

We co n clu d e th at th e p etitio n er h as f ailed to p ro v e th at co u n sel p erf o rm ed d ef

icien tly

o r th at an y d ef

icien cy cau sed h im p r e

j u d ice. T h e p etitio n er, as w ith th e p rev io u s issu e, f ailed to en su re th at th e reco rd co n t a i n e d t h e relev an t p o rtio n o f th e trial tran scrip t th at
ref eren ced th e p rio r co n v ictio n

. M o re im p o rtan tly

, h e f

ailed to p resen t an y ev id en ce at th e

ev id en tiary h earin g th at th e p rio r co n v ictio n w as u sed im p ro p erly o r p rej u d iced h is case. A t
th e h earin g , th e p etitio n er ack n o w led g ed th at h e h ad a p rio r sex u al b attery co n v ictio n an d

arg u ed th at th e S tate h ad erro n eo u sly ref erred to co n v ictio n s f

o r “ag g rav ated b u rg laries an d

p o ssessio n o f

h an d g u n s.” A s to th is issu e, th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt f o u n d th at th e reco rd
sh o w ed th e p etitio n er w as ch arg ed w ith b ein g a co n v icted f elo n in p o ssessio n o f a f

irearm ; th eref o re, th e S tate h ad to p ro v e th e p etitio n er’s p rio r co n v ictio n as a n ecessary elem en t o f
th e o f f en se. T h e reco rd rev eals n o erro r in th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt’s d eterm in atio n

.

D . W itn esses a t th e S u p p ressio n H ea rin g

T h e p etitio n er arg u es th at trial co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to su b p o en a h is

accu sers, K ev in Wisem an an d K im H u g h es, to testif y at th e su p p ressio n h earin g , w h ich

resu lted in th e d en ial o f h is rig h t to co n f ro n tati o n , an d f

ailin g to p reserv e th e issu e f o r

ap p eal. S erg ean t Jam es F itzp atrick testif ied at th e su p p ressio n h e a r i n g reg ard in g h is

co m p ilatio n o f th e p h o to g rap h ic array s in th e case an d th e id en tif icatio n s b y Wisem an an d

H u g h es. A t th e ev id en tiary h earin g , co u n sel testif ied th at th e su p p ressio n h earin g w as f o r “a M o tio n to S u p p ress th e P h o to S p read th at w as actu ally u sed to id en tif y [ th e p etitio n er] ,”

-18-an d S erg ean t F itzp atrick testif ied in th at reg ard

.

A f ter rev iew

, w e co n clu d e th at th e p etitio n er h as f ailed to p ro v e th at co u n se l

p erf o rmed d ef

icien tly o r th at an y d ef icien cy cau sed h im p rej u d ice. T h e rig h t to

co n f ro n tatio n is a trial rig h t an d d o es n o t ap p ly in su p p ressio n h earin g s. S ee S tate v

. B u sh

, 9 4 2 S .W.2 d 4 8 9

, 5 1 1 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ); see also H ag g ard v

. S tate, 4 7 5 S .W.2 d 1 8 6

, 1 8 7 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 7 1 ) (n o tin g th at “[ t] h e ‘co n f ro n tatio n ’ g u a r a n teed b y th e U n ited S tates
C o n stitu tio n is c o n f

ro n tatio n at trial”); P en n sy lv an ia v

. R itch ie, 4 8 0 U .S

. 3 9

, 5 2 (1 9 8 7 ).

M o reo v e r , t h e p etitio n er o f f ered n o p ro o f as to h o w th e o u tco m e o f h is case w o u ld h av e b een d if f eren t h ad W i s e m an an d H u g h es testif ied at th e su p p ressio n h earin g

. A s to th is
issu e, th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt f o u n d th at th ere w as n o ev id en ce in th e reco rd to su p p o rt th e

p etitio n er’s claim , an d w e ag ree.

E . P ro secu to r’s S ta tem en ts R eg a rd in g P o st-A rrest S ilen ce

T h e p etitio n er arg u es th at trial co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to o b

j ect t o t h e

p ro secu to r’s co m m en ts co n cern in g h is p o st-arrest silen ce an d f ailin g to p reserv e th e issu e f o r ap p eal. H o w ev er, th e p etitio n er h as f ailed to p ro v e th at trial co u n sel p er f o r me d
d ef icien tly as h e f

ailed to sp ecif

y th e alleg ed ly im

p ro p er statem en ts o r en su re th at th e

p ertin en t p o rtio n s o f th e trial tran scrip t w ere in clu d ed in th e ap p ellate reco rd

. In an y ev en t,
th e reco rd in d icates th at th e p etitio n er m ay b e ref errin g to a statem en t b y th e p ro s ecu to r

p o in tin g o u t th at th e f

irst tim e th e p etitio n er to ld h is sto ry w as w h en h e testif ied at trial. In
th at reg ard

, trial co u n sel testif ied at th e ev id en tiary h earin g th at, w h en a d ef en d an t elects to
testif y an d h as m ad e n o p rev io u s statem en t, it is a co m m o n tactic b y th e p ro secu tio n to p o in t

o u t th at it is th e d ef

en d an t’s f irst tim e tellin g h is sto ry

. C o u n sel said th at su ch tactics carry

v ery little w eig h t an d o b

j ectin g to th e p ro secu to r’s q u estio n w o u ld o n ly d raw m o re atten tio n

to it. T h e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt co n clu d ed th at trial co u n sel m ad e an ap p ro p riat e tactical
d ecisio n to n o t o b

j ect to th e p ro secu to r’s statem en t. T h e reco rd su p p o rts th is d eterm in atio n

.

F . P ro secu to r’s M issta tem en ts R eg a rd in g th e F a cts

T h e p e t i t i o n er arg u es th at trial co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to o b

j ect to th e

p ro secu to r’s statem en ts in clo sin g arg u m en t to f acts n o t in th e reco rd an d f ailin g to p reserv e th e issu e f o r ap p eal. T h e p etitio n er asserts th at th e p ro secu to r’s statem en t th at th e p etitio n er

to o k th e v ictim ’s car k ey s d u rin g th e en co u n ter w as n o t su p p o rted b y th e ev id en ce.

T h e p et itio n er f

ailed to en su re th at th e tran scrip ts o f th e clo sin g arg u m en ts w ere in clu d ed in th e reco rd o n ap p eal; th eref o re, w e are u n a b l e t o rev iew th e alleg ed ly

in ap p ro p riate co m m en ts. In an y ev en t, th e p o rtio n o f th e trial tran scrip t th at is av ailab le, as

w ell as o u r o p in io n o n d irect ap p eal, sh o w th at K ev in Wisem an testif ied th at th ree m en ,

-19-in clu d in g th e p etitio n er, ap p ro ach ed h im an d h is b ro th er, Jesse Win d o m , in th e car lo t. H e

said th at h e h eard th e p etitio n er start th e L ex u s, ev en th o u g h h e d id n o t sp ecif ically see h im

g et th e k ey s

. H o w e v e r , h e later testif ied th at th e m en g o t th e k ey s to th e L ex u s f ro m Win d o m ’s p erso n

. Wisem an th en , o n cro ss-ex am in atio n , ag ain testif ied th at h e d id n o t see th e p etitio n er o b tain th e k ey s b u t saw h im “cran k u p th e L ex u s.” “A p ro secu to r’s clo sin g

arg u m en t m a y b e b ased u p o n reaso n ab le in f eren ces d raw n f

ro m th e ev id en ce.” S tate v

. H en retta, 3 2 5 S .W.3 d 1 1 2

, 1 2 6 (T en n

. 2 0 1 0 ). In lig h t o f W i s e ma n ’ s testim o n y , it w as

reaso n ab le f

o r th e p ro secu to r to tell th e j u ry in clo sin g arg u m en t th at th e p etitio n er o b tain ed
th e k ey s f ro m th e v ictim

. T h u s, w e d iscern n o d ef icien cy in trial co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce f o r f ailin g to o b

j ect to th e p ro secu to r’s statem en t. M o reo v er, as f o u n d b y th e p o st-co n v ictio n

co u r t

, t h e “[ p ] etitio n er h as n o t d em o n strated h o w [ c] o u n sel’s f ailu re to o b

j ect to an y

p o ssib ly m isco n stru ed f

acts d u rin g th e S tate’s clo sin g arg u m en ts p rej u d iced h im .”

G . P ro secu to r’s M issta tem en t o f P rio r C o n v ictio n s

T h e p etitio n er arg u es th at trial co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to o b

j ect t o t h e

p ro secu to r’s m isstatem en t o f th e p etitio n er’s p rio r co n v ictions a nd c r i m i na l hi s t or

y by say in g th at th e p etitio n er “h ad b een co n v i c t ed o f ag g rav ated b u rg laries an d p o ssessio n o f

h an d g u n s.” H e asserts th at “[ s] u ch statem en ts u n f airly ch aracterized [ h im ] as v io len t an d /o r d an g ero u s in th e ey es o f

th e j u ry .”

H o w ev er, th e p etitio n er f ailed to en su re th e tran scrip t o f th e clo sin g arg u m en ts w as in clu d ed in th e reco rd o n ap p eal f o r th is co u rt to rev iew th e p ro secu to r’s ex act statem en t.
In an y ev en t, th e p etitio n er f ailed to p ro v e th at trial co u n sel p erf o rm ed d ef

icien tly as h e d id

n o t sh o w th at h e h ad n o t b een co n v icted o f o f f en ses reaso n ab ly ch aracterized as th at stated
b y th e p ro secu to r. O u r o p in io n o n d irect ap p eal recites th e p etitio n er’s crim in al reco r d to
in clu d e co n v ictio n s f

o r, am o n g o th er th in g s, seco n d d eg ree b u rg lary

. U n d er o u r p rio r 2

crim in al co d e, seco n d d eg ree b u r g lary w as th e b u rg lary o f a d w ellin g h o u se. S ee T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 3 9 -3 -4 0 3 (a) (1 9 8 6 ). A g g rav ated b u rg lary u n d er o u r cu rren t co d e is b u rg lary

o f a h ab itatio n

. Id

. § 3 9 -1 4 -4 0 3 (a) (2 0 0 6 ). M o reo v er, th e p etitio n er receiv ed a f if teen -y ear

sen ten ce o n th e seco n d d eg ree b u rg lary co n v ictio n s, th e m ax im u m p ro v id ed f

o r b y th e f o rm er statu te. T h e r e c o r d i s s ilen t as to w h eth er th e p etitio n er receiv ed th at sen ten ce b ecau se h e p o ssessed a h an d g u n d u rin g th e co mmi s s io n o f th e b u rg lary

, see id

. § 3 9 -3

- 4 0 3 (3 ), o r f

o r o th er reaso n s. In ad d itio n , th e p e t i t i o n er o f f ered n o sh o w in g th at su ch

m isstatem en t b y th e p ro secu t o r, if d eem ed as su ch

, in th e sco p e o f an en tire clo sin g

arg u m en t, p rej u d iced h is case.

T he o ff ens es occ urr ed p ri or to the 198 9 Se nte nci ng Refor m Act

. 2

-20-H . C o m m en ts o n L esser-In clu d ed O f f en ses

T h e p etitio n er arg u es th at tr i a l c o u n s e l w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to o b

j ect to th e S tate’s co m m en t s t o th e j u ry reg ard in g its co n sid eratio n o f lesser-in clu d ed o f f en ses an d

f ailin g to p reserv e th e issu e f o r d irect ap p eal. T h e p etitio n er co n ten d s th at th e S tate “ad v ised
th e j u ry th at th ey m

u st n o t co n sid er th e lesser in clu d ed o f f en ses, d esp ite th e f

act th at it is th e f u n ctio n o f

th e C o u rt, n o t th e atto rn ey s, to in stru ct th e j u ro rs o n ap p licatio n o f th e law .”

A g ain

, th e tran scrip t o f th e S tate’s clo sin g arg u m en t w as n o t in clu d ed in th e reco rd

o n ap p eal; th eref

o re, w e are u n ab le to ev alu ate t h e p r o secu to r’s sp ecif ic co m m en t. It

ap p ears f ro m th e p etitio n er’s testim o n y at th e ev id en tiary h earin g th at th e p ro secu to r arg u ed
th at th e p etitio n er w as g u ilty o f f irst d eg ree m

u rd er, an d an y o th er v erd ict w o u ld essen tially
b e a n o t g u ilty v erd ict. H o w ev er, su ch arg u m en t can b e reaso n ab ly v iew ed as a co n ten tio n b y th e S tate th at th e f

acts f u lly su p p o rted a f

irst d eg ree m

u rd er co n v ictio n

. M o reo v er, w e

can n o t co n clu d e th at su ch co m m en t p rej u d iced th e p etitio n er’s case b ecau se th e trial co u rt

p resu m ab ly in stru cted th e j u ry as to its c o n s i d e r atio n o f lesser-in clu d ed o f f en ses an d

an sw ered th e j u ry ’s q u estio n s reg ard in g l e s s e r

- in clu d ed o f f en ses in acco rd an ce w ith th e law

.

I. L a te D isclo su re o f

a W itn ess

T h e p etitio n er arg u es th at trial co u n s e l w a s i n e f f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to o b

j ect to th e S tate’s “late an d u n tim ely d isclo su re o f B rad y v [ .] M ary lan d w itn ess statem en t m aterials an d

f ailu re to req u est a recess f o r th e p u rp o se o f rev iew in g th e p rio r statem en ts o f w itn ess K im

H u g h es, th e [ S ] tate’s id en tif icatio n w itn ess.”

A lth o u g h th e p etitio n er ref eren ces it in h is b rief

, h e f ailed to in clu d e th e p o rtio n o f
th e trial tran scrip t w h ere th e S tate d isclo sed th e w itn ess statem en t an d th e trial co u rt g ran ted

a recess f o r th e p arties to rev iew th e in f o rm atio n

. In an y

ev en t, th e p etitio n er h as f ailed to
sh o w h o w h is ca s e w as p rej u d iced d u e to th e late d isclo su re o f H u g h es’ statem en t. T h is

co u rt h as p rev io u sly

ad d ressed th e d if

f eren ce b etw een d elay ed d isclo su re o f ev id en ce an d

co m p lete n o n d isclo su re o f

ev id en ce:

In d eed

, w h en th ere h as b een a d elay ed d isclo su re o f ev id en ce, as o p p o sed to

a co m p lete n o n d isclo su re, B rad y is n o rm ally in ap p licab le u n l e s s t h e d elay
itself cau ses p rej u d ice. S ee S tate v

. C au g h ro n , 8 5 5 S .W.2 d 5 2 6

, 5 4 8 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ); S tat e v

. Jo an E lizab eth H all, N o

. 0 1 C 0 1 -9 7 1 0 -C C -0 0 5 0 3

, 1 9 9 9 WL

3 4 7 8 2

, at * 9 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. at N ash v ille, Jan

. 2 8

, 1 9 9 9 ). Wh en th ere h as b een a d elay ed d isclo su re, as o p p o sed to a n o n d isclo su re, th e ap p ellan t m u st
estab lish th at th e d elay ed d isclo su re p rev en ted h im f ro m u sin g th e d isclo sed

m aterial ef

f ectiv ely in p r e p a r in g an d p resen tin g h is case. C au g h ro n , 8 5 5

-21-S .W.2 d at 5 4 8

.

S tate v

. L arry B o y

k in

, N o

. E 2 0 0 5 -0 1 5 8 2 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 0 7 WL 8 3 6 8 0 7

, at * 1 3 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. M ar. 2 0

, 2 0 0 7 ), p erm

. to ap p eal d en ied (T en n

. A u g

. 1 3

, 2 0 0 7 ). T h e p etitio n er ack n o w led g ed th at trial co u n sel receiv ed th e m aterial d u rin g trial an d th at th e trial c o u rt

g ran ted a r e c e s s , w h ich allo w ed co u n sel tim e to rev iew th e m aterial. T h e p etitio n er h as f ailed to sh o w h o w , o r ev en alleg e, th e d elay in receiv in g th e m ateri a l s o r t r i a l co u n sel’s

f ailu re to d iscu ss th e m aterials w ith h im p rej u d iced h is case.

II. A lleg a tio n s A g a in st A p p ella te C o u n sel

A . F a ilu re to A p p ea l In stru ctio n o n L esser-In clu d ed O f f en ses

T h e p etitio n er arg u es th at ap p ellate co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to cite an d rely

o n th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt o p in io n , S tate v

. E ly

, 4 8 S .W.3 d 7 1 0 (T en n

. 2 0 0 1 ), w h ich

h eld th at crim in ally n eg lig en t h o m icid e w as a lesser-in clu d ed o f f en se o f f elo n y m u rd er an d

p rem ed itated f

irst d eg ree m

u rd er.

A s to th is issu e, th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt n o ted th at, in E ly

, th e trial co u rt h ad ref u sed

to in stru ct th e j u ry o n an y lesser-in clu d ed o f f en ses to f

elo n y m u rd er, in clu d in g seco n d
d eg ree m u rd er, as o p p o sed to th e p etitio n er’s case w h ere th e j u ry w as in stru cted o n sev eral
lesser-in clu d ed o f

f en ses, in clu d in g seco n d d eg ree m u rd e r

. G iv en th at th e j u ry w as in stru cted o n sev eral lesser-in clu d ed o f f en ses b u t d id n o t red u ce th e c h arg e b elo w f irst
d eg ree m u rd er, w e f

ail to see h o w th e p etitio n er w as p rej u d iced b y th e f ailu re to ch arg e th e j u ry o n a n ev en lesser ch arg e. T h eref o re, w e can n o t co n clu d e th at ap p ellate co u n sel

ren d ered in ef

f ectiv e assistan ce in th is reg ard

.

B . F a ilu re to A p p ea l E x clu sio n o f C o u rt T V Vid eo ta p e

T h e p etitio n er lastly arg u es th at ap p ellate co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to ap p eal
th e trial co u rt’s ex clu sio n o f v id eo tap e ev id en ce o f h is p re-arrest w itn ess id en tif icatio n

reco rd ed b y C o u rt T V

. T h e p etitio n er ex p lain ed th at K ev in Wisem an ’s in itial id en tif icatio n

o f h im w as reco rd ed as p art o f a telev isio n p ro g ram f o r C o u rt T V

. H e c l a im ed th at th e “f o o tag e w o u ld h av e rev ealed to th e j u ry th at M r. Wisem an w as q u ite ten tativ e an d u n certain
d u rin g th e selectio n p ro cess, w h en th eo retically th e d etails o f th e ev en ts w o u ld h av e b een

m u ch m o re recen t an d clearer in h is m em o ry .”

T h e reco rd d o es n o t su g g est a reaso n ab le p ro b ab ility th at an ap p eal o f th is issu e

w o u ld h av e b een su ccessf u l. A t trial, co u n sel f

o r t h e c o

- d ef

en d an t attem

p ted to en ter th e C o u rt T V tap e to sh o w in co n sisten cies in Wisem an ’s ab ility to id en tif y th e co -d ef

en d an t.

-22-T h e p ro secu to r arg u ed th at th e v id eo co u ld n o t b e au th en ticated b ecau se Wisem an ’s p ictu re

w as b lu rred o u t. T h e v id eo w as p lay ed f o r th e co u rt in a j u ry -o u t h earin g

. T h e co u rt

o b serv ed th at th e v id eo w as “d ram atized an d m islead in g ” an d h ad b een ed ited to u tilize sp lit

screen s an d d if

f eren t an g les. T h e co u rt d escrib ed th e v id eo as a “ c o mme r cialized

sen satio n alized H o lly

w o o d f ilm ,” n o t “an o b

j ectiv e co n stan tly ru n n in g cam era f o r C -S P A N

o r f o r so m e civ ics class.” T h e co u rt also f o u n d th at th e v id eo d id n o t im p each Wisem an , as it sh o w ed h im m ak in g an id en tif icatio n o f th e co -d ef

en d an t. T h ere w as n o real d iscu ssio n

co n cern in g Wisem an ’s id en tif icatio n o f th e p etitio n er, b u t th e d iscu ssio n su g g ests th at

q u estio n s co n cern in g th e co n f id en ce o f Wisem an ’s id en tif icatio n p r i ma r i ly in v o lv ed o n ly
th e co -d ef

en d an t. T h e co u rt ex clu d ed th e tap e b u t allo w ed th e p arties to a s k W isem an

q u estio n s ab o u t it o n cro ss-ex am in atio n , n o tin g th at th e p arties co u ld ren ew th eir req u est if
Wisem an said so m eth in g d i r e c t l y co n trary to w h at w as sh o w n o n th e v id eo

. A f ter
Wisem an ’s testim o n y , th e co u rt n o ted th at Wisem an h ad testif ied co n sisten tly w ith w h at w as ref lected o n th e v id eo

.

T h e ad m issio n o f ev id en ce g en erally lies w ith in th e so u n d d iscretio n o f th e trial co u rt

an d w ill n o t b e rev ersed o n ap p eal ab sen t a sh o w in g o f an ab u se o f d iscretio n

. S ee S tate v

. R o b in so n , 1 4 6 S .W.3 d 4 6 9

, 4 9 0 (T en n

. 2 0 0 4 ); S tate v

. G illilan d

, 2 2 S .W.3 d 2 6 6

, 2 7 0 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ); S tate v

. E d iso n , 9 S .W.3 d 7 5

, 7 7 ( T en n

. 1 9 9 9 ). G iv en th e ev id en ce b ef o re u s, w e sim p ly f ail to see, h ad th e issu e b een ap p ealed

, an y reaso n ab le p ro b ab ility th at th e rev iew in g

co u rt w o u ld h av e d eterm in ed th at th e trial co u rt ab u sed its d iscretio n in ex clu d in g th e C o u rt
T V v id eo tap e. T h eref

o re, w e can n o t co n clu d e th at ap p ellate co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e in th is

reg ard

.

C O N C L U S IO N

B ased o n th e f

o reg o in g au th o rities an d reaso n in g , w e af f irm th e d en ial o f

th e

p etitio n

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A L A N E

. G L E N N

, J U D G E

-23-