### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Marc h 1, 200 5 S es sio n

DA VID JOHNS ON v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Obi on Coun ty No. 4-149 William B. Acre e, Jr., Judge

No. W2004-02017-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled Jun e 23, 2005

Pe tit ion e r, Da vidJohn so n, app e a ls the dis mis sa l of h is pro s e petition for post-conviction re lief. On appea l, Petiti oner a

rg ues that his trial counsel re n d er ed ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel when he failed to intervie w or call a witness who could have provided an alibi for Petitioner on the night of the offe nses. Afte r a r eview of the re cord in this matt er , we a ffirm the post-c onviction court’s dismiss al of the pe tition.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.
TimothyBoxx , Dy ersbur g , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, David Johnson.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Thomas A. Thomas, District Attorne y Gene ral; and Jim T. C annon, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F oll ow ing a

jury tr ia l, P e tit ion e r w a s c on vic te d o f t wo c ou nts of a tte mpt e d pr e me dit a te d f ir st deg ree murder, a nd the trial court sentence d Petitioner to concurr ent twenty -five y ear sentenc es on
eac h count. This Court affirmed the convic tions on direct appe al. State v. David L. Johnson , No. W2002-00935-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 8 2 6 (T enn. Crim. App., Sept. 25, 20 03 ). Th e fa c ts s ur

ro un din g Pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio ns we re su mma ri zeda s f oll ow s ( re fe re nc e s to “appe llant” is a re fer ence to Petiti oner)

.

On Aug ust 6, 2001, the victims, Robbie Upchurc h and Reg g ie J ordan, w ere shot on the front porc h of Mr. Upc hurch 's home in Union City , Tenne ssee. Mr. Upchur ch wa s wounded in the leg

. Mr. J ordan was s hot in the back and is paraly zed be low the wa ist

.-2- Mr . U pc hu rc h a ndMr . Jor da n te sti fi e d tha t at a bo ut 1 0:0 0 p .m. , ju st p ri or to the shooting, the y

drove to Mr. U pchurc h' s house in a Camar o. They stated that as the y app ro a c he d M r. Up c hu rc h' s h ou se , th e y sa w the app e lla nt in a v e hic le wi th Jos h Mc El rath, Jef

fr e y Shi e lds , Wil lie Vaug hn , a ndMa ri o McEl rath. Th e vic tim s said they first saw the othe r vehic le at an inter section nea r Mr. Upc h u rch' s home. Acc ording to M r

. U p c h u r c h , th e o c c u p a n ts o f th e o th e r v e h ic le s ta

r e d a s h e tu r ned le ft tow ard his ho me . T he vic tim s t esti fi e d th e y sa w the oth e r c ar a

se c on d ti me wh e n it tr a ve le d p a st M r. Up c hu rc h' s h ou se on Ho me Str e e t.
The victims testified they pulled into Mr. Upchurc h' s driveway , exit ed the C am ar o , and wa lked onto the porc h. Mr. Upchur ch stated he then hea rd three g un sh ots , th e fi rs t striki ng him in the le g . M r. Jord a n s a id h e he ardfi ve or six sh ots , one of w hich struck him in the back. Neither victim sa w the shooter. Mr. Upc hurch said he did not know why the appe llant would shoo t h i m , b u t specula ted it was be c a us e he wa s " fr om o ut o f t ow n" a ndthe app e lla nt' s g ir lf ri e ndlik e d h im.

M ar i o M cE l ra t h an d J ef

fr eyS h i el d s t es t i fi ed t h at o n t h e n i gh to f t h e s h o o t i n g, they wer e in the car with the appellant, Wil lie Vaug hn, and J osh McElra th, w ho was driving

. Mario McElrath stated t hat when they drove past a C amar o, the appe llant
c omm e nte d, " Th e re g oe s [U pc hu rc h]." B oth Mr . Shie lds a ndMa ri o M c El rath s a id that w hen the y

sa w the Ca maro tr a ve lin g on Ho me Str e e t, the app e lla nt t oldJosh McElra th to pull over. Both testified Josh McElrath turned lef t on College Street and stopped nea

r Counce' s Groc ery

Store. They

testified eve ry one exited the car except J osh McElrath, but only

the appe llant went behind the store

.
Mr . Shi e l d s s t a t e d h e s a w t h e ap p e l l a n tj u m p a f e n c e , a n d M ar i o M c E l ra th indicated he hear d the appe llant scale the fenc e. B oth witnesses said they hear d gu n s h o t s s ec o n d s l at er

. M ar i o M cE l ra t h t es t i fi ed t h e a p p el l an tre t u rn ed ca rr y i n g a black automatic pistol t hat was " about like a nine mill imeter," and said, "I shot one of ' em." Mr. Shields c onfirmed the appellant was car ry ing a blac k pistol and stated the appe llant said, "Tw o for one ain' t bad."
Sony a Polk and L atasha

Buc hanan tes t ified they

share d a home with Mr. Up c hu rc h. Th e wo me n state d that a t the tim e of the sh oo tin g , th e y we re in the ho us e with six children betwee n the age s of four and ten. Ac cording to Ms. Pol k, she hea rd more than f

our g unshots as she was r eading to t h ree of the c hildren in the fr ont be dr oo m a t a

bo ut 1 0:0 0 p.m. Ms. B uc ha na n in dic a te d s he he ardmor e than f ou r s ho ts in rapid succ ession. Both wome n conf i rm ed Mr. Upc hurch a nd Mr. J ordan w ere wo un de d, bu t ne ith e r o f the m sa w w ho fi re d th e sh ots

.
Lt. Rick Kelly

of t he Union City Police Depa rtment testified he inve stigated t h e c r i m e s c e n e a n d f

o u n d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g a tl e a s tf i v e r o u n d s w e r e f

i r e d

. In addition to two nine mill imeter shell ca sings f ound nineteen f

eet f rom the house, he-3-

found bul let holes in the window air conditioner, the r ail of the fr ont porch, a nd the foundation of the house . Lt. Kelly further testified t h at M r. Upc hurch' s house was located ne x t to Counce' s Groce ry , and there was a fence betwee n the house a nd the store: Acc ording to L t. Kelly , the appellant g ave a s tatement in which he said that on the nig ht of the off

ense, he was at home until approx imately 10:15 p.m., when he
we n t t o a friend' s house wher e " J eff Shields," " J osh," a nd another person we re watching television. The appe llant indicated he he ard g unshots in the alley and saw
a C a m ar o d r i v i n g a w a y.

TB I fo re ns ic sc ie nti st T e rri A rn ie te sti fi e d the tw o s he ll c a sin g s f ou ndby Lt. Ke l l y a t th e c r i m e s c e n e c a m e f r o m t h e s a m e n i n e m i l l i m e t e r w e ap o n

. She a lso stated that a bullet re cover ed fr om the crime scene w as a nine milli meter c aliber bu lle t.
Id. at *2-5. The Supreme Court de nied Petitioner’s application for pe rmission to appeal on Mar ch 8, 2004.

On app e a l, P e tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t hi s tria l c ou ns e l’ s fa ilu re to c a ll Ja me s Ma rs ha ll a s a wi tne ss at tria l c on sti tut e d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

c ou ns e l. P e tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t Mr . M ars ha ll
c ou ld h a ve pr ov ide d Pe tit ion e r w ith a n a lib i f or th e ti me th e of

fe ns e s w e re c omm itt e d, or a t le a st
corr oborate d Petitioner’s defe nse that he w as not the shooter. At the post-conviction hea ring , Petitioner said that he arrived at Mr. Marsha ll’s house around 10:00 p.m. on the night of the shootings. He said that Mr. Mar shall was o n t h e t el ep hone, and Petitioner waited on the f ront porch f

or Mr. Mar shall to finish hi s ca l l

. J osh McElrath, Jeffre y Shi e lds , a nda no the r i nd iv id ua l a rrive d at Mr . M ars ha ll’ s h ou se so me tim e a ft e r 1 0:0 0 p .m. Peti t i oner sa id that Mr. Marsha ll’s house was a bout two blocks from the sce ne of the crime, a nd Pe tit ion e r d id n ot h e ar a ny g un sh ots that ni g ht.

Petitioner said that he told his trial counsel about his alibi witness, but t rial counse l did not interview Mr . Marsha ll. On cross-examination, Petitioner denied that he told his t rial counse l that he wa s in the c ar w ith Ma ri o M c El rath andMr . Sh ie lds on thenig ht o f the sh oo tin g s.
Petitioner’s trial co u n s el testified that Petitioner did not tell him about Mr. Marshall’s po te nti a l te sti mon y , a ndthe re wa s n o r e c or d in his fi le that Peti tio ne r of fe re d Mr. Ma

rs ha ll’ s n a me as a w itness. Trial counse l f irst me t w ith Petitioner the day afte r the shooting w hen Petitioner wa s
arr aig ned in Gene ral Sessions Court. Petitioner told him during that meeting that he wa s in the car wi th thr e e oth e r ind ivi du a ls. Pe tit ion e r sa id that the se thr e e pe op le we re arm e d, bu t Pe tit ion e r d id
no t f ir e a g un that ni g ht.

Trial counse l said that in November , 2002, the district attorney ’s offic e extended Petitioner
an offe r for settlement of the ca se. Tria l counsel re lay ed the State’ s offe r to Petitioner during a twohour mee ting, a nd he and Petitioner r eviewe d all of the State’s discove ry . Tria l co u nsel g ave Petitioner a copy

of the file, inc luding the inve stigatory reports prepar ed by

the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nvestig ation.-4-

On No ve mbe r 2 8, 20 02 , Peti tio ne r tol d tri a l cou ns e l th a t Ma ri o M c El rath s ho t th e vic tim s. Pe tit ion e r a lso a dmi tte d th a t he ha d be e n at the c ri me sc e ne that nig ht w ith fo ur oth e r i nd ivi du a ls. Tria l c ou ns e l sa id t

ha t in a ll o f P eti ti on er’ s v e rs ion s o f the nig ht’ s e ve nts , h e a lw a y s a dmi tte d to
e ith e r b e ing in the c ar w ith the sh oo te r o r at th e sc e ne of the of fe ns e s.

Mr. M ars h a ll te s ti f

ie d a t th e p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n h e ar in g th a t h e w a s ta lkin g o n th e te le phone when Petitioner a

rrived be tween 10:10 p.m. and 10:25 p.m. Petitioner wa ited outside for Mr. Marsha ll to finish hi s call, which he did about t wenty to thirty minutes later. Mr. Marshall could not
se e Pe tit io ner while he wa s ta lki ng on the te le ph on e , b ut P e tit ion e r w a s st a nd ing on the sid e wa lk wh e n M r. Ma

rs ha ll w e nt o uts ide

. Mr . Mar sh a ll he ard po lic e sir e ns fr om his po rc h. Mr . M ars ha ll said that his house was thre e or f our blocks fr om the vict ims’ house, and he did not hear a ny g un sh ots that ni g ht.
During Mr. Marsha ll’s cross-e x amination, the following exchang e took place :
[S TATE]: And y ou g ave a sworn statement to the Tenne ssee B ureau of I nvestig ation conce rning this crime, didn’t y ou?
[MR . MARSHALL ]: Yes, sir.
[S TATE]: And just looking throug h parts of it, at one point, y ou said,

“ [Pet iti on e r] n e ve r t oldme that he wa s in vo lve d w ith or did this sh o oting. I f [Petit ioner] had told me he wa s involved, I would not have let him hang out there. [Petitione r] told me, ‘I f [y ou all] f

i n d t h e gu n , it would not have his prints on it.’ [P etitioner] also told m e that Mario had a Tech 9 in the car that night.” Do y o u rec all making that part of the statement t o t h e T B I?
[M R

. M A R S H A LL ]: Ire me mbe r t a l k i ng to t he TB Ia nd the ya sk e d me if

[P etitioner] had a g un.
[S TATE]: Do y ou rec all these other statements I

just read?
[M R. M A RS H A LL ]: Ido rec all him s a y in g th a t h e d id n ’ t

– h e didn’t do the

sh oo tin g , th a t if y ou fi ndthe we apo n, it w ou ldn ’t ha ve his f in g e rp r in t[ s ].
[S TATE]: Do y ou reme mber him telling y ou that someone ha d a Te ch 9

in the car , that Mario had a Tec h 9.
[MR. MA RSH AL

L ]: I re a lly c a n’ t r e c a ll.-5-

The post-c onviction court spec ifically cre dited the testimony of Petitioner’s trial c ounsel that Petitioner had not told him t hat Mr. Mar shall could prov i d e h i m wi t h an alibi for the time of the shootings. Moreove r, the post-conviction court found that Petitioner failed to show that h e w as prejudice d by

trial counsel’ s failure to call Mr. Mar shall as a wi t n es s. The post-convic tion court found that eve n if Mr. Mar shall had testified, his testimony would not have e stablished an alibi for Petitioner, and Petitioner had g iven statements to the police an d to his trial counsel that wer e inconsistent with an alibi defe nse. A petitioner see king post-c onviction relief must establish his al l ega t i ons by clea r and
c on vin c ing e vid e nc e . Te nn . Code An n. § 4 0- 30 -2 10 (f ) ( 19 97 ). Th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t in a post -convic tion hearing are aff orded the weig ht of a jury verdic t. Bl ac k

v . S tat e , 794 S.W .2d 752, 7 5 5 (T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 0 ). T h er ef o re , t h i s C o u rt m ay n o t re -w ei gh o r r e- ev al u at e t h es e f i n d i n gs nor substitute its i nfer ence s for those of t h e trial judg e unless the e vidence in the rec ord preponde rate s ag ainst those finding s. Sta te v . H on ey c utt , 5 4 S.W. 3d 76 2, 76 3 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) ; Sta te
v . Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999) . I n addition, questions concerning the cre dibilit y of wi tne sse s a ndthe we ig ht an d v a lue g ive n th e ir te sti mon y

is r e so lve d b y

the tr ia l c ou rt , a ndno t th is Court. Burns , 6 S.W. 3da t 46 1. Ho we ve r, the tr ial cou rt ’s app lic a tio n o f the la w t o th e fa c ts i s revie wed de novo , without a presumption of cor rec tness. Fi e lds v . S tat e , 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001). A c laim that counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive assistanc e is a mi x ed question of f act a nd law and there fore also subject to de novo r eview. Id. ; Burns , 6 S.W .3d at 461.
When a petitioner see ks post-conviction relief on the basis of inef

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

. W

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

. 1 9 7 5 )

. In
a dd iti on , h e mus t sh ow that c ou ns e l’ s in effec tiv e pe rf orma nc e a c tua lly

a dv e rs e ly

imp a c te d h is defe nse. Stric kland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 693, 104 S. C t. 2052, 2067, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1 98 4) . In r e vie wi ng c ou ns e l’ s p e rf or ma nc e , th e dis tortio ns of hin ds ig ht mus t be a vo ide d, a ndthi s Court will not s econd- g uess co u n s el ’s dec isions reg arding trial strateg ies and tac tics. Hellard v. State, 6 2 9 S

. W

. 2 d 4 , 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 8 2 )

. T h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , s h o u l d n o t c o n c l ud e tha t a pa rt ic ula r a c t or omi ssi on by

c ou ns e l is un re a so na

ble me re ly be c a us e the str a te g y wa s u ns uc c e ssf

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

both prong s of the Strickland test befor e he or she may preva il on a cla im of ineffe ctive assistance of counse l. See H enleyv. State, 960 S.W .2d 572, 580 (Tenn. 1997)

. Th a t is , a pe tit ion e r m us t no t on ly sh ow that hi s c ou ns el’ s perf orm anc e fe ll b e low a c c e pta ble standards, but that such pe rformance was pre judicial to the petitioner. Id. Fa ilure to satisfy either prong will result in the denial of re lief. Id. Acc ording ly , this Court need n o t ad d re s s one of the components i f t he petiti oner fails to establish the other. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct . at 2069.-6-

Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t his tri a l cou ns e l’ s ass ist a nc e wa s in e ff e c tiv e be c a us e he faile d to c a ll Mr . M ars ha ll a s a n a lib i wi tne ss. Pe tit ion e r a rg ue s th a t a lth ou g h tria l c ou ns e l te sti fi e d th a t hi s f ile did not contain a refer ence to Mr. M arsha ll’s potential testimony , he admitted that his file wa s not complete. This ar g ument is essentially a cha lleng e to t he post -convic tion court’s asse ssment of the witness’s cr edibilitywhich is proper ly the province of the post-c onviction trial court, not the appellate court. See B urns , 6 S.W .3d at 461.

Moreover, the e vid en ce d o es n o tp re p o n d er at e a gai n s tt h e p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n court’s finding that Pe tit ion e r f

a ile d to e sta

bli sh that he wa s pre

jud ic e d by the failu re to c a ll M r. Ma rs ha ll a s a wi tne ss. Th e vic tim s te sti fi e d a t tr ia l that the sh oo tin g s oc c ur re d wh e n the y arrive d h ome aro un d 1 0:0 0 p .m. Mr . M ars ha ll, wh o live d be tw e e n two a nd fo ur blo c ks fr om the c ri me sc e ne , s a id that Pe tit ion e r c a me ov e r to hou se be tw e e n 10:1 0 p .m. a nd10 :25 p. m. o n th e nig ht o f the sh oo tin g s. Mr . M ars ha ll d id not see Petitioner ag ain until he fini s h ed h i s telephone c onversation twenty -five to thirty minutes later. Petitioner initially

told his t rial counse l that he was in the car with the shooter, and, on a later date , to ld h is t

ri a l c ou ns e l th a t he wa s a t the c ri me sc e ne

. Pe tit ion e r is no t e nti tle d to re lie f on thi s issue.
Petitioner arg ues that his trial counsel’ s conduct wa s deficie nt because he failed to discove r Mr. Marsha ll’s statement to the TBI

. Petitioner contends that Mr. Marsha ll’s statement would have supported Petitioner’s de fense that h e was not the shooter . The State a rg ues that Petitioner fa iled to show that he wa s prejudice d b y t h i s omission. P etitioner did not introduce Mr. Ma rshall’s statement into evidenc e at the pos t-conviction hearing nor did he show that the statement was a mong the State’s docume nts that were prese nted to trial counsel during disc overy . I n any event, r ely ing
on Ha ll v . S tat e , 552 S.W .2d 417, 418 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977), the S tate ar g ues that a de fenda nt’s
se lf -s e rv ing state me nts are g e ne ra ll y in admissi ble be c a us e the re is “ no thi ng to g ua rante e its testimonial trustworthiness.” Se e als o Tenn. R. Evid. 803(3).

The topic of Mr. Marsha ll’s statement to the TBI was first introduced during the S tate’s
cross-e x amination of Mr. Mar shall. Petiti o n er ’s co unsel did not pursue the issue on re direc t
e xami natio n. Pos t- c on vic tio n c ou ns e l, ho we ve r, re fe re nc e d M r. Ma rs ha ll’ s st a te me nt i n h is arg ument to the post-conviction court a fter the evidentiary hearing. He contende d that the statement
wa s in the TB I

fi le g iven t o tr ial c ou ns e l, andthe g ist of Mr . M ars ha ll’ s st a te me nt at le a st
c or ro bo rate d Pe tit ion e r’ s de fe ns e that he wa s no t th e sh oo te r. Th e pr os e c uto r r e pli e d th a t he c ou ld not say with certainty

that Mr. Marsha ll’s statement was g iven to trial counsel a s part of the State’s dis c ov e ry , a ndthe po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt didno t a dd re ss this iss ue in i ts f ind ing s.

Even a ssuming that the p o s t- c o n v ic ti o nc o u r t h a d f o u n d that Mr. Marsha ll’s statement exist ed in the State’s file a s alleg ed by Petitioner, Petiti oner did not subm it evidenc e that he w as pre judiced
or that his tr ia l c ou ns e l re nd e re d ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of c ou ns e l by no t ob tai ni ng th e state me nt. Petitioner also failed to show how his s el f- s er ving statement to Mr. Marsha ll would have bee n admissible substantive evidence t h ro u gh Mr. Marsha ll’s testimony . As the post-convic tion court found, Petitioner fa iled to show that Mr. Marsha ll would have provide d an alibi for Petitioner. Def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.-7- CO NC LU SION

Af te r a re vie w o f the re c or d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE