### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs F eb ru ar y 10, 200 4

AN THON Y M UR FF v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 7022 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2003-00467-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled Fe bruary 26, 2004

T h is is an a

p p e a l b y th e p e ti ti o n e r f r o m th e d e n ia l o f h is p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n r e li e f petition. The petitioner wa s orig inally

convicted of

espec ially

ag g ravated robbe ry

and s en t en ce dto 60 y ear s at 100% ser vice. Af ter c are ful revie w, we a ffirm the de nial of post-convic tion relief.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff 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 J OE G. R I L EY and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.

Wil liam Dan Doug las, J r., Ripley , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Anthony

Murff.

Pa ul G. Sum me rs , Attor

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

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Eliz abeth T

. R i ce , Di strict Attorney Gene ral; and Tr ace y

A. B rew er, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION The pe titioner, Anthony

Murff, appea ls the denial of hi s petition for post-c onviction relief. The pe titioner was orig inally convicted of

espec ially

ag g ravated robbe ry , a C l as s A felony , and sentenc ed to 60 y ear s as a Rang e I I I , persistent off ender , to be serve d at 100%. The pe titioner’s direc t appea l of his con v i ct i o n and sente nce r esulted in an a ffirmation of both. Stat e v

. An thony

Murff, a ka Anthony

Muff, No. W2001-01459-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Te nn. Crim. App. L EXI S 498 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, June 11, 2002). The opinion re cites a suc cinct summary of the fa cts underly

ing the conviction: On May 27, 2000, the seve nty -seve n-y ear -old victim, Robert Milton W oodard, Sr., who was pa

rtially para ly

zed from a stroke, wa s alone in his apar tment in Ri pley

when the fo rt y -o ne -ye ar- old

de fe nd ant, An tho ny Mu rff, c ame to h is d oo r, os te ns ibl y seekingpay

ment for ha

ving mowe d the victim’s lawn. When the victim a dmitted the-2-

defe ndant into his home, the defe ndant struck him multiple tim es i n the head with a hammer, bound his ar

ms behind his ba ck with an e lectric al cor d, and took ca sh from his wa lle t. The def

e nd ant w a s su

bs e qu e ntl y

ind ic te d o n o ne c ount o f e sp e c ia lly
a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

and on e c ount o f a g g ra

vate d a ssa

ult

. I d. at **2-3. Followinghis unsuccessf ul direct a ppeal, the pe titioner filed a pe tition for post-conviction relief , alleg ing ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. The petition c ontained the followingg rounds: 1) fa ilure to a de qu ate ly

inv e sti g a te ; 2) ina de qu a te c on su ltatio n w iththe pe tit ion e r; 3) fa ilure to f ile pretria l motions ; 4) failure of trial cour t to substi tute counsel; 5) i n ef fective jury

selec tion; and 6) fa ilure to i ns ur e pr op e r j ur y ins tr uc tio ns

.
P os t- Co nvi c ti on H e ar ing

Co u n s e l f o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r , a t t r i a l an d o n d i r e c t a p p e a l , w a s th e f

i r s t w i tn e s s a t the po stc on vic tio n h e ari ng . Sh e state d s he ha d b e e n a n a ssi sta nt pu bli c de fe nd e r fo r te n and

on e -h a lf y e ars

. She was a

ppointed as counsel in Gener al Sessions Court. Couns el re called c onsulting with the petitioner four times dur ing repr esentation at the Gene ral Sessions level. As pa rt of her prepa ration, she i nterview ed the victim, the S tate’s witnesses, and thos e indi viduals sug g ested by the petitioner. She a lso vis ite d th e c ri me sc e ne . A n inve sti g a tor a ssi ste d h e r in l oc a tin g and int e rv ie wi ngwi tne sse s, as we ll as liaison work with the petitioner. He r investig ation did not confirm any evidenc e of violent be havio r o r t e nd e nc ie s b y the vic tim

. Counsel stated that a full pre liminary hear ing was held, with four or five witnesse s produce d by the State. Afte r the indictment wa s returne d, she co n t i nued her investigation. Discovery was furnished by

the State, and she met with the petitioner duringrepr esentation in C ircuit Court. She interviewe d all State witnesses or he ard the ir testimony at the pre liminary

hear ing.
App ro x imately

three months elapsed betwe en the c harg es orig inally filed ag ainst the pe tit ion e r a

nd the pr e lim ina

ry he ari ng . Co un se l e xpla ine d this wa s d ue to t he vic tim ’s inj ur ie s, wh i ch we re ch ar ac t er i z edas l i fe t h re at en i n g. The pe titioner ref

used to meet with counse l on one of he r pretrial visits to the j ail. Counsel informed the tr ial court, and a hear ing was held the following day . The pe titioner reque sted a ne w attorney be appointed, a

nd the cour

t denied the reque st. Following the hea ring , counsel stated she
wa s a ble to s pe nd

sev eral ho ur s w iththe pe tit ion e r p re pa ri ngfo r t ri a l. S he fe lt p re pa

re d f or tr ia l. Duri ngjur

y se le c tio n, a

se rg e ant of th e jai l whe re the pe tit ion e r w a s c on fi ne d w a s se a te d a s a pr os pe c tiv e jur or . Co un se l st a te d s he re c omm e nd e d h is dis mi ssal , b ut t he pe tit ion e r w ante d h im reta ined due to the serge an t ’s fair tr eatment of the petitioner. The serg eant wa s seated a s a juror. The pe t i t i o n er ’s counsel testified that she revie wed the vic tim’s medical re ports from The Med, Ba ptist L auder dale, and a rehabilitation fac ility

. Counsel could not rec all the ex act number of times the vic timha d b e e n s tr

uc k b ut s a id t

he re wa s o ne de pr e sse d s ku ll f ra c tur e that re qu ir e d a

me ta l pl a te-3-

ins e rt and se ve ra l ot he r d e e p g a sh e s o n th e he a d. She re c a lle d th e pe tit ion e r ha d cla ime d that he on ly struck the victim once

. Counsel considere d aff

irmative def

enses a nd thought one was applicable , a “cla im of rig ht.” This defe nse wa s based on the pe titioner’s claim that the victim owed him money for yard w ork. Counsel failed to file notice of this as an a ffirmative defe n s e, and it was not included in jury i n s t r u c t i o n s

. H o w e v e r , t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i m e d r i g h tt o th e m o n e y w a s ar g u e d t o th e j ur y.
After the petiti o n er ’s conviction, counse l review ed the a ppellate issues with him. The petitioner broug ht up the issue of the ser g eant on the j u ry , an dcounsel e x plained it was not an appropr iate appe llate iss u e as t h e petitioner ha d acc epted the jur or and the pere mptory challeng es wer e not exhausted. Counsel g ave the petitioner a copy of the motion for ne w trial and pr ocee ded to r e pr e se nt h im o n a

pp e a l.

On c ro ss -ex amin a tio n, c ouns e l r e ite ra te d th a t th e vic tim ’s inj ur ie s w e re se ri ou s e no ug h to rende r his survival questionable. Counsel c ould not reca ll the number of hour s spent in consultation with the petitioner but did state that she met with him a total of nine or ten times. Counsel stated that she h ad filed pretrial motions. Counsel specifica lly denied a ny violation of the attorney -client privileg e. Counsel stated that the jury instructions give n we re the “usua l [ ] give[n] from the Tenne ssee Patter

n J ury I nstructions.” The pe titioner testified that, had c ounsel investigated prope rly , sh e wo u l dhave se en the victim was untruthful in hi s ac co u n t. He also stated that, had counse l talked to phy sicians persona lly , she could have better ref uted the prosec ution theory on the number of

injuries suffe red by the victim. The petitioner a lso faulted counse l’s lack of investigation into t he possibility of the victim combining alc ohol and Prozac. The pe titioner testified that he tried r epeatedly to ha ve counsel c ome and discuss his def ense. He state d that his wife and mother called his counsel and that he se nt word by inmates reque sting her prese nce. He also sent a six -pag e letter to counsel in ref

ere nce to pr epar ing the defe nse. Afte r the petit ioner sent a letter of complaint to counsel’s supe rvisor, she a ppear ed for

a conf ere nce thr ee day s later. The petitioner requested counsel take pictures of wor k he had pe rfor

med at his mother’s residenc e in or der to e x plain his posse ssion of the hammer. The petitioner complained that c ounsel did no t a g re e wi th h is de sir e to a tta c k the vic tim ’s me nta l state . H e state d th a t he r i nv e sti g a tio n into the fa c ts a

nd his de fe ns e s w e re so de fi c ie nt a s to re su lt i n a n unf a ir tr ia l. The pre trial motions that the petitioner desired to be fil ed wer e a motion to dismiss the ind ic tme nt o r a

wr it o f ha be a s cor pu s. Th e pe tit ion e r co nte nd e d that the statut e of lim itatio ns wo uld have e x pired for

failure to hold a “pre liminary hear ing w ithin the mandatory time limi t.”

I n r e fe re nc e to a lle g a tio ns of no n- c omm

un ic a tio n in h is peti tio n, he state d th e re wa s a c on fl ic t be tw e e n h im a

nd c ouns e l. Th e pe tit ion e r s a id h e wa s f ru str a te d th a t c ouns e l w ou ld n ot c ome and talk to h i m

. He s t at ed “[i] t got to the point wher e, . . . . I ref used to see he r.” The petitioner-4-

stated that he did not t rust counsel and althoug h they communicated at trial, he did not fee l his input
was a cce pted.

I n ref ere nce to jury

selec tion, the petitioner contende d that he had oppose d the re tention of the sherif f’s de puty

as a juror . He state d that it would have bee n illogica l for him t o ac cept the
se rg eant a ft e r h avin g fi le d a g ri e va nc e on on e of the se rg e ant’ s su

bo rd inate s. Th e pe tit ion e r a lso stated his belief that, had expert medica l testimo n y been a cquire d, it would have re futed the
a lle g a tio n th a t he ha d r e pe a te dly str uc k th e vic tim

.
I n his last alleg ation, the petitioner c ontended that co u n s el was deficient in not ra ising a n aff irmative def

ense a nd t h at , as a re sult, the jury instructions were inadequate or improper . The petitioner espe cially

felt that self- defe nse wa s appropr iate due to his cl ai m t h at t he victim had slapped him. A docume n t reflectingthe petitioner’s r equeste d jury instructions was introduce d. Counsel had ac knowledg ed, in her handwr iting, that she failed to rea liz e the “cla im or rig ht” was a n aff irmative def

ense until it was too late to file the r equire d notice.

On cross -e xami natio n, the pe tit ion e r a dmi tte d th a t he ha d g on e to t he vic tim ’s ho us e to
co l l ec ta d eb t an d , i n fa ct , cau s ed an i n j ury

. T h e pe t i t i o n er s t at ed th at af t er th e pr el i m i n ary

h ea ri n g, he and his c ounsel did not discuss the fac ts of his case.

Ana lys is The pe titioner in a pos t -c o n v i ction proce edingbear s the burden of proving the alleg ations
asser ted in the petition by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. See T enn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(f ). The trial court’ s findings of

fac t a re conclusive on a

ppeal unless the e vidence preponde rate s otherwise. State v. Bur

ns, 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999)

. This Court revie ws a claim of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel under the standards of Bax ter
v. Ros e , 5 23 S.W. 2d

93 0 ( Te nn . 1 97 5) , a

nd Str ic kla nd v. Was hin g ton, 46 6 U .S. 66 8, 10 4 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1984). The petitio n er h as the burde n to prove that (1) the attorne y ’s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt, and (2) the defic ient perf ormanc e resulted in prejudice to the defe ndant so as to deprive him of a fa ir trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct . at 2064; Goad v. State, 938 S.W .2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996) ; B utler v. State, 789 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tenn. 1990). The failure to pr ov e e ith e r de fi c ie nc y or pr e jud ic e jus tif

ie s d e nia l of

re lie f; the re fo re , th e c ourt ne e d n ot a dd

re ss the components in any

particula r orde r or e ven addr ess both if one is insufficie nt. Goad, 938 S.W.2d
a t 37 0. I n o rd e r t o e sta

bli shpr e jud ic e , th e pe tit ion e r mus t est a bli sha “ re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that, but for counse l’s unprofe ssional error s, the result of the pr ocee ding would have be en diffe rent. A
re a s o n a b le p r o b a b il it y is a p r o b a b il it y s u f f ic ie n t t o un d e r

mi n e c o n f

id e n c e in th e outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068.

The test in Tenne ssee to determine whe ther c ounsel provided e ffe ctive assistanc e is whethe r his or he r p e rf or manc e wa s w ith in t

he ra ng e of c omp e te nc e de mand e d o f atto rn e y s in c ri min a l c a se s. Bax ter, 523 S.W .2d at 936. The pe titioner must overcome the presumption that counsel’s c onduct falls within the wide ra

ng e of a cce ptable prof

essional assistance . Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104-5-

S. Ct

. at 2065; State v. Honeycutt, 54 S.W .3d 762, 769 (Tenn. 2001). There fore , in order to prove a deficienc y , a petitioner must show “that counsel’s a cts or omissions were so se rious as to fall below an objec tive standard of rea sonablene ss under prevailingprofe ssional norms.” Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 369 (c iting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2065).

I n re vie wi ng c ouns e l’ s con du c t, a “f a ir a sse ssm e nt . . . r e qu ir e s th a t e ve ry e ff or t be ma de to eliminate the distorting e ffe cts of hindsig ht, to r econstruc t the circ umstances of counsel’s c halleng ed conduct, a

nd to evaluate the conduc t from counse l’s perspe ctive at the time.” Nichols v. State, 90 S.W .3d 576, 587 (Tenn. 2002) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065). The fac t that
a pa rt icul ar s tr a te g y

or ta c tic fa ile d o r h

ur t th e de fe ns e do e s n ot, sta nd inga lon e , e sta

bli sh
unrea sonable re prese ntation. H oweve r, def ere nce to matter s of strategy and tac tical choice s applies only if the choice s are informed ones based upon adequate prepa ration. Henley

v. State, 960 S.W .2d 572, 579 (Tenn. 1997) ; Hellard v. State, 629 S.W.2d 4, 9 (Tenn. 1982). The post-c onviction judge filed an or der se tting for th his findings of f

act a nd conclusions of law. I n h is f

ind ing s, the ju dge rej e c te d th e pe tit ion e r’ s c la im that c ouns e l f a ile d to a de qu a te ly investigate his case and stated:

Couns e l w a s p re se nt f

or a fu ll p re lim ina

ry he ari ng , int erv ie we d w itn e sse s, went to the sce ne, took photog raphs a nd met wi t h petitioner many times. An inv e sti g a tor work e d o n th e c a se . T he fa c ts w e re no t di ff ic ult . T he [pe tit ion e r] d id not deny beinginvolved.

I n reg ard to the pe titioner’s claim that an expert witness should ha ve been reta ined to testify that the victim was not seriously injured, the post-c onviction court pointed out there was no showing
an ex per t w o u ld h av e te s ti f

ie d in th a t m an n e r

. We n o te a s w e ll th a t i t i s th e o b li g a ti o no f the petitioner to prese nt such a witness at the evidentiar y hear ing. State v. Bla ck, 794 S.W .2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. The post-c onviction court ac cepte d the testimony of counsel as t o her c onsultations with t he petitioner and r ejec ted t he petiti oner’ s claim of inadequate consult ation. L ikewise, the c ourt found that appropr iate pre trial motions we re filed and that the petitioner had f ailed to show that a diff

ere nt result would have occur

red ha d other motions been f iled.

I n ref ere nce to t h e p e ti ti o n e r ’ s c o mp la int of improper jury selec tion, the post-conviction court
acc epted c ounsel’s testimony conce rning her rec ommendation that the juror in que stion be excused and thus reje cted the pe titioner’s claim. The post-c onviction court stated that the petitioner ha d f a i l e d t o s h o w an y a

p p l i c a b l e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s th a t s h o u l d h av e b e e n g i v e n th a tw e r e n o tg i v e n

. In concludingthat the petitioner ha d not shown that service s of counse l were defic ient or any resultant pr e ju d ic e , th e p o s t- c o n v ic ti o nju d g e f o un d th a t t h e p e ti ti o n e r

h a d f a il e d to e s ta b li s hth e f

a c tual alleg ations by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. The post-c onviction court ac cepte d counsel’s te st i m o ny conce rning the investig ation, consultation with the petit ioner, and counsel’s acc ount of t he jury selec tion. The evidenc e does not-6-

pr e po nd e rate a g a ins t th e se fi nd ing s, and we a c c e pt t

he m. T he pe tit ion e r f

a ile d to e sta

bli shany via ble pretr ia l m o ti o nth a t c o u n s e l s h o u ld h av e f il e d o nh is b e h a lf

. T h e p e ti ti o n e r

a s s e rte d th a t a w r it of habea s corpus should have been f iled when he fa ce da dela y betwee n arr est and the pr eliminary hear ing. Such a

filing w ould have be en futile. Giova nny Morpea u v. State, No. M2002 -00060- C C A- R 3 -C O, 2 0 0 2 T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. L E XIS 7 0 6 , at * * 5 -6 (T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. at Na s h v i l l e, Au g. 12 , 2 00 2) (o rd e r) . T he pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to sh ow

de fi c ie nc y in re pr e se ntatio n o r p re jud ic e in t his reg ard.

Counsel conce ded that the one aff irmative defe nse she adopted, a “cla im of rig ht” as to the money taken, wa s not tim ely

filed. Howe ver, the issue was argued to the jury and wa s considere d on direc t appea l. I n reje cting this arg ument, this Court stated, “the amount of money the victim may have owed the [petit ioner] has no bearingon the [petiti oner’ s] conviction for espec ially ag g ravated robber y .” Anthony

Murff, 2002 T enn. Crim. App. L EXI S 498, at *20.

For the fore g oing r easons, we conclude that none of the petitioner’s alleg ations merit relief
and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he po st- c onvic tio n c ourt

.

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