# FILED
November 25, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON OCTOBER SESSION, 1997

ISHAAN K. MUBA

RAK, )

) No. 02C01-9706-CR-00211 Appellant ) ) SHELBY COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. W. FRED AXLEY, Judge STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) (Post-Conviction) Appellee )
For the Appellant : For the Appellee : Richard F. Vaughn John Knox Walkup 1928 - 100 N. Main Attorney General and Repor ter Memphis, TN 38103 Elizabeth T. Ry an Assistant Attorney Gener al Criminal Justice Div

ision 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493
William Gibbons District Attorney General Ms. Alanda Horne Asst. District Attor

ney General Criminal Justice Comple x Suite 301, 201 Poplar Street Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED: AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO R ULE 20
David G. Hay

es Judge2 OPINION
The appellant, Ishaan K. Mubarak, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On July 10, 1992, a jury returned a verdict findin g the appellant guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree. He is cur

rently serving

a twenty-five y

ear sentence in the Department of Correction for this offense. On M ay 4, 1994, the appellant filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received the ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel fa iled to adequately investigate the case and prepare for trial, failed to interview potential witnesses, failed to adequately cros s-examine the State’s w itnesses, permitted two potential defense witnesses to remain i n the courtroom thus disqual ifying them from testifying, and advis

ed the appellant against accep ting the State’s plea offer. The post-conviction court

conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. The appellant now appeals this denial.
The proof at the post-convicti on hearing established that appellant’s trial counsel was a ten-ye ar veteran of the pu blic def ender’s o ffice in Shelby Cou nty. At the hearing, the appellant's trial counsel testified that he and previous counsel met with the appellant on at l east four or five occasions.Trial counsel stated that the investigator w

ith the public defender’s office took the statements of all testifying witnesses and the victim in this case. After talking with the appellant’s mother, counsel decided not to call he r as a witness because her testimony contradict ed that of the appellant’s. The record indicates that cou nsel’s cross-examination of State’s witness, Hooker, w

as more than adequate. Counsel stated that he was unawar e of the possibility of the tw o potential defense witnesses until after the witnesses had been sitting in the court room and after hearing the proof. M oreover, counsel stated that the appellant maintained his innocence and wanted to proceed to trial.3 In denying relief, the pos t-conviction court ac

credited the testimony of the appellant’s trial counsel and concluded that the appellant had not met his burden of proving th at he had been dep rived of t he effe ctive assis tance of counsel. To prove that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, the appell ant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, Taylor v. State , 875 S.W.2d 684, 686 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), perm. to appeal denied , (Tenn. 1994), first, that counsel's representation fell below the range of competence de manded of attorneys in criminal cases, Baxter v. Rose , 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975), and, second, that, but for these errors, the result of the proceeding w ould have been different. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984); State v. Melson , 772 S.W.2d 417, 419 n.2 (Tenn.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 874, 110 S.Ct. 211 (1989). On post-conviction review, there is a strong presumption of satisfactory representation, Barr v. State , 910 S.W.2d 462, 46 4 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

When this court undertakes review of a lower court's decision on a petition for post -convi ction r

elief, the lowe r court's findi ngs of fac t are gi ven the weight of a jury verdict and are conclusive on appeal absent a finding that the evidence preponderates against the ju dgment. Clenny v. State , 576 S.W.2d 12, 14 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978), cert. denied , 441 U.S. 947, 99 S.Ct. 2170 (1979 ). After reviewi ng the record, we cannot conc lude that the evidence preponderates against the postconviction court's findi ngs. Moreover, w e find no error of law mandating reversal of the court's judgment. The post- conviction court's den ial of the appellant's petition for post-conviction rel ief is affirmed in accordance with Tenn. Ct. Crim. R. App. 20.4 ____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Jud ge
CONCUR:

_____________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

_____________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Ju dge