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

Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Nov em be r 10 , 20 11

Pet it io n t o R eh ear Gra nt ed Octo be r 9, 2 01 2

SHUNDEL L LYNN DICKE RSON v . STATE O F TENNESSE E

A p p ea l f ro m th e C rim in a l C o u rt f o r D a v id so n C o u n ty
N o . 2 0 0 4 -A -5 3 8 C h ery l B la ckb u rn , J u d g e

N o . M 2 0 1 1 -0 0 6 4 4 -C C A -R 3 -P C - F iled F eb ru a ry 2 7 , 2 0 1 3

P etitio n er, S h u n d ell L y

n n D ick erso n , ap p ealed th e trial co u rt’s d en ial o f p o st-co n v ictio n relief

, an d th is co u rt af

f irm ed th e j u d g m en t o f th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt. S h u n d ell L yn n Di c k e r s on v

. St at e of Te nne

s s e e , No

. M 2 0 1 1 -0 0 6 4 4 -C C A -R 3 -P C

, 2 0 1 2 WL 2 5 6 4 3 7 6 (T e nn. C rim

. A p p

. at N ash v ille, f iled Ju ly 3 , 2 0 1 2 ). In th at o p in io n , P etitio n er raised th e issu e o f

w h eth er h is ap p ellate co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to ch allen g e th e su f f icien cy o f th e

co n v ict i n g e v i d e n ce o n d irect ap p eal. We ack n o w led g ed th at p u rsu an t to o u r su p rem e

co u rt’s d ecisio n in S ta te v. P a rker

, 3 5 0 S .W.3 d 8 8 3 (T en n

. 2 0 1 1 ), ap p ellate rev iew o f th e

su f f icien cy o f th e ev id en ce m u st b e u n d e r t a k e n w ith resp ect to th e o f f en se f o r w h ich a d ef en d an t w as co n v icted rath er th an th e g reater o f f en se w ith w h ich h e o r sh e w as ch arg ed

. We w ere p reclu d ed

, h o w ev er, f ro m f u lly co n sid erin g th e issu e b ecau se th e su m m ary o f th e f acts co n tain ed in o u r o p in io n in th e d irect ap p eal w as n o t ad eq u ate to allo w f o r rev iew o f
th e issu e, an d

, th ro u g h n o f au lt o f P e t itio n er, th e ap p ellate reco rd in th e d irect ap p eal w as d estro y ed in th e h isto ric N ash v ille f lo o d in M ay , 2 0 1 0

. T h e r e f o re, th is co u rt co u ld n o t d eterm in e f

ro m th e reco rd w h eth er P e t i t i o n er su f f ered p rej u d ice b y ap p ellate co u n sel’s
d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce in f

ailin g to ch allen g e th e su f f icien cy o f th e co n v ictin g ev id en ce o n

ap p eal. S in ce th e f

ilin g o f th at o p in io n , th is co u rt h as g ran ted P etitio n er’s p etitio n to reh ear th e issu e o f t h e in ef

f ectiv en ess o f ap p ellate co u n sel, an d P etitio n er h as su p p lem en ted th e

reco rd w ith co p ies o f th e trial tran scrip t. B o th p arties h av e f iled su p p lem en tal b rief

s. A f ter

a rev iew o f

th e reco rd b ef

o re u s, w e af

f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt.

T en n . R . A p p . P . 3 A p p ea l a s o f R ig h t; J u d g m en t o f

th e C rim in a l C o u rt A f

f irm ed

T H O M A S T

. W O O D A L L , J., d eliv ered th e o p in io n o f th e C o u rt, in w h ich J O H N E V E R E T T W IL L IA M S an d R O B E R T W. W E D E M E Y E R , JJ., j o in ed

.

Jam es O

. M a r t i n , N ash v ille, T en n essee, (o n ap p eal) an d K risten V an d erK o o i, N ash v ille,

T en n essee, (at trial) f

o r th e ap p ellan t, S h u n d ell L y n n D ick erso n

.R o b e r t E

. C o o p er, Jr., A tto rn ey G en eral an d R ep o rter; S o p h ia S

. L ee, A ssistan t A tto rn e y

G en eral; V icto r S

. (T o rry ) Jo h n so n , III, D istrict A tto rn ey G en eral; an d B ret G u n n , A ssistan t
D istrict A tto rn ey

G en eral, f

o r th e ap p ellee, th e S tate o f T en n essee.

O P IN IO N A F T E R R E H E A R IN G

F a cts

T ria l

S to rm y Wo o d s testif ied th at o n th e af

tern o o n o f O cto b er 1 9

, 2 0 0 3

, sh e w en t sh o p p in g

w ith h er f rien d R h o n d a T h o m

p so n an d M s. T h o m

p so n ’s f rien d E ric Jo h n so n

. M s. Wo o d s

w as p ark ed o u tsid e o f a strip m all, w aitin g o n M s. T h o m p so n an d M r. Jo h n so n to retu rn to th e car f ro m th e sto re. Wh en th ey retu rn ed to th e car, “[ j ] u st as [ M s. T h o m

p so n ] h ad o p en ed
th e p assen g er sid e d o o r a car cam e f ro m b eh in d [ th em ] an d started sh o o tin g .” M s. Wo o d s

saw M r. Jo h n so n g et sh o t an d f all to t h e g ro u n d

. S h e testif ied th at sh e saw th e sh o o ter in
th e d riv er’s seat o f th e car, w h ich sh e d escrib ed as a n ew er, f o u r-d o o r, d ark g reen car. S h e

co u ld n o t tell if an y o n e else w as in th e car. S h e d escrib ed th e sh o o ter as a “m ed iu m sk in n ed

, A f rican -A m erican m an , . . . aro u n d m id to early tw en ties.” H e w as w earin g a sp o rts j ersey ,

an d h e h ad a b lack b an d an a o n h is h ead

. W h en th e sh o o tin g sto p p ed

, M s. T h o m p so n g o t
in sid e th e c a r a n d M s. Wo o d s d ro v e aw ay

. M s. T h o m p so n to ld M s. Wo o d s to leav e M r. Jo h n so n th ere. T h ey d ro v e to a f rien d ’s h o u se, an d th e f

rien d called th e p o lice. Wh en th e

p o lice arriv ed , M s. T h o m p so n w as tak en to th e h o sp ital. M s. Wo o d s testif ied th at h er car h ad f o u r o r f iv e b u llet h o les in th e p assen g er sid e. S h e w as n o t ab le to id en tif y P etitio n er as th e sh o o ter, an d sh e d id n o t see an y o n e b esid es th e sh o o ter in sid e o f th e v eh icle.

R h o n d a T h o m

p so n testif

ied th at as sh e an d M r. Jo h n so n ap p ro ach ed M s. Wo o d s’ car,

a d ark -co lo red car w ith tin ted w in d o w s “d ro v e u p an d started sh o o tin g .” S h e testif ied th at th e d riv er’s si d e w in d o w w as d o w n an d sh e saw o n e p erso n f irin g a g u n

. M s. T h o m

p so n

w as u n ab le to id en tif

y th e sh o o ter, b u t sh e testif ied th at th e sh o o ter w as A f rican -A m erican

an d “lig h t sk in n ed .” M s. T h o m p so n also testif

ied th at sh e saw o n e o th er p erso n in sid e th e

v eh icle.

O f f icer T erry B u rn ett, o f

th e M etro N ash v ille P o lice D ep artm en t, resp o n d ed to th e

scen e o f th e sh o o tin g

. Wh en h e arriv ed

, h e saw M r. Jo h n so n ly in g o n th e g ro u n d an d
“b leed in g ex trem ely b ad .” H e also saw sev eral sh ell casin g s o n th e g ro u n d

. A n am b u lan ce arriv ed an d tran sp o rted M r. Jo h n so n to th e h o sp ital.

D r. F en g L i, an assistan t m ed ical ex am in er f o r D av id so n C o u n ty , testif ied th at M r. Jo h n so n su f

f ered six g u n sh o t w o u n d s. D r. L i reco v ered th r e e p r o j ectiles f ro m M r.

2Jo h n so n ’s b o d y

. T h e cau se o f h i s d eath w as m u ltip le g u n sh o t w o u n d s an d th e m an n er o f
d eath w as h o m icid e.

T am ek a B u ch an an w itn essed th e sh o o tin g

. S h e w as leav in g th e p ark in g lo t w h en sh e h eard g u n sh o ts. S h e saw tw o cars f leein g th e scen e. O n e o f t h e c a r s w as d riv en b y “tw o

w h ite g irls,” an d th e o th er w as a b lack M o n te C arlo w ith tin ted w in d o w s. S h e co u ld n o t see

w h o w as in sid e th e M o n te C arlo

.

A lice D o u g lass, M s. B u ch an an ’s sister, testif ied th at sh e w as at th e sh o p p in g cen ter

w ith M s. B u ch an an w h en th e sh o o tin g o ccu rred

. S h e h eard g u n sh o ts an d tu rn ed an d saw

a b lack M o n te C arlo w ith tin ted w in d o w s sp eed aw ay

. M s. D o u g lass testif ied th at w h ile M s. B u ch an an ten d e d t o M r. Jo h n so n , sh e w en t in to a n earb y sto re to u se th e telep h o n e. S h e testif ied th at th e s a me b l ack car d ro v e b y ag ain

, “[ l] o o k ed at th e b o d y , w h atn o t, th e g u y

. A n d said h e d id n ’t k n o w th at f o o l

– th ey d id n ’t k n o w th at f o o l. A n d th en th ey lef

t.” M s. D o u g lass testif

ied th at th ere w ere tw o b lack m ales in sid e th e car. T h e d riv er h ad b raid s, an d
th e p assen g er h ad a b lu e b an d an a aro u n d h is f ace.

K atrin a F rierso n h ad tw o ch ild ren w ith P etitio n er. S h e testif ied th at P etitio n er to ld
h er th a t h e k illed M r. Jo h n so n

. M s. F rierso n testif ied th at in h er in itial in terv iew w ith
d etectiv es, h o w ev er, sh e d id n o t state th at P etitio n er h ad to ld h er th at h e k illed M r. Jo h n so n

. S h e testif ied th at sh e d id n o t tell d etectiv es in itially b ecau se P etitio n er h ad th reaten ed to “tak e [ h er] k id s.” O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , sh e testif ied th at sh e h ad b een ch arg ed w ith f o u r

co u n ts o f ag g rav ated ro b b ery

. S h e w as released f ro m j ail af

ter h er b o n d w as red u ced

, w h ich

w as af ter sh e ag reed to testif

y in th is case.

M s. F rierso n testif

ied th at P etitio n er to ld h er “th at so m eb o d y h ad to p ay .” P etitio n er
to ld h er th at h e h ad f

o l l o w ed M r. Jo h n so n to a sh o p p in g cen ter an d “em p tied h is clip o n h im ” w h en h e cam e o u t o f th e sto re. H e to ld h er th at M r. Jo h n so n w as w ith “a w h ite g irl.”

H e said th at h e w as w ith “a co u p le o f h is h o m e b o y s

. ” S h e t estif ied th at P etitio n er w as “scared ” an d th at h e to ld h er “th at if an y th in g h ap p en ed to h im to m ak e su re [ sh e] to o k care

o f h is k id s.”

M s. F rierso n also testif

ied th at o n O cto b er 2 4

, 2 0 0 3

, P etitio n er sh o t h er telev isio n in
h er b ed ro o m w ith a n in e m illim eter h an d g u n

. A n eig h b o r h eard th e g u n sh o t an d called th e

p o lice. Wh en th e p o lice arriv ed

, th ey f o u n d P etitio n er h id in g in h er clo set. S h e ack n o w led g ed th at sh e in itially lied to th e p o lice ab o u t P etitio n er b ein g in h er h o m e.

O f f icer Jaco b P ilarsk i, o f th e M etro N ash v ille P o lice D ep artm en t, resp o n d ed to th e in cid en t at M s. F rierso n ’s h o u se. Wh en h e arriv ed

, h e o b serv ed th at th e telev isio n “ap p eared

3to b e b ro k en , sh attered

. T h e tu b e w as sh attered .” H e f o u n d “o n e sp en t sh ell casin g ” f ro m

a n in e m illim eter b eh in d th e telev isio n

.

O f f icer M ich ael P y

b u rn , o f th e M etro N ash v ille P o lice D ep artm en t, ex am in ed th ree

p ro j ectiles an d eig h t sh ell casin g s th at w ere reco v ered f ro m th e scen e o f

th e sh o o tin g

. H e d eterm in ed th at tw o o f th e th ree b u llets reco v ered f r o m t h e s cen e w ere n in e m illim eter b u llets th at w ere f

ired f ro m “an u n k n o w n f

irearm .” T h e th ird b u llet w as a .4 5 calib er b u llet
th at w as f ired f ro m “a seco n d u n k n o w n f irearm .” O f

f icer P y b u rn testif

ied th at sev en o f th e eig h t d isch arg ed cartrid g e cases w ere W i n ch ester .4 5 au to cartrid g e cases, an d o n e w as a d isch arg ed R em in g to n n in e m illim eter L u g er cart r id g e case. H e also ex am in ed th e th ree

p ro j ectiles th at w ere reco v ered f ro m th e v ictim ’s b o d y

. O n e w as a n in e m illim eter p ro j ectile,

w h ich h ad in su f

f icien t m ark in g s to d eterm in e f ro m w h at f

irearm it w as d isch arg ed

. T h e

o th er tw o w ere .4 5 cali b e r p r o j e ctiles th at w ere f

ired f ro m th e sam e u n k n o w n .4 5 calib er f irearm f ro m w h ich th e p ro

j ectiles f o u n d at th e scen e w ere f ired

. O f f icer P y b u rn also

ex am in ed th e n in e m illim eter sh ell casin g f o u n d in M s. F rierso n ’s h o m e an d d eterm in ed th at it w as d isch arg ed b y th e sam e u n k n o w n n in e m illim eter h an d g u n th a t f ired th e n in e

m illim eter b u llets an d sh ell casin g s f o u n d at th e crim e scen e. O f f icer P y b u rn testif

ied th at “at least tw o d if

f eren t f irearm s” w ere f

ired at th e crim e scen e.

T am ara E llio tt, C laren ce E llio tt’s w if e an d E ric Jo h n so n ’s co u sin

, testif ied th at o n S ep tem b er 2 0

, 2 0 0 3

, sh e w as p resen t w h en M r. E llio tt sh o t T erren ce G reg o ry in th eir y ard

. S h e testif ied th at M r. Jo h n so n w as a c r o s s t h e street p ain tin g

. M s. E llio tt d id n o t call th e

p o lice af ter th at in cid en t. S h e testif ied th at sh e learn ed f

ro m P etitio n er th at M r. Jo h n so n h ad
b een k illed ap p ro x im ate l y t w o d a y s af ter th e sh o o tin g , w h en P etitio n er w en t to h er h o u se

an d to ld h er h e “k n o ck ed [ th e v ictim ] o f f .” O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , M s. E llio tt d id n o t tell
d etectiv es th at P etitio n er h ad ad m itted to h er th at h e sh o t M r. Jo h n so n w h en sh e in itially m et

w ith h im

. S h e also testif ied th at sh e learn ed ab o u t M r. Jo h n so n b ein g k i l l e d b y “so m e

w o m an o n th e street.”

T erren ce G reg o ry testif

ied t ha t he wa s wi t

h Pe t i t i one r a

nd Pe t i t io n er’s b ro th er M o n tez
D i c k e r s o n w h en M r. G reg o ry w as sh o t f o u r tim es b y C laren ce E llio tt o n S ep tem b er 2 0

, 2 0 0 3

. P etitio n er h ad to ld M r. G reg o ry th at M r. E ll i o t t “ w a n t e d to b u y so m e co k e.” M r. G reg o ry b eliev ed th at P etitio n er an d M o n tez D ick erso n h ad set h im u p t o b e sh o t b y M r. E llio tt. M r. G reg o ry testif ied th at h e w a s i n carcerated w ith P etitio n er, an d P etitio n er to ld
h im th at h e d id n o t set h im

u p to b e sh o t an d th at M r. Jo h n so n w as o n e o f th e p eo p le w h o sh o t M r. G reg o ry . P etitio n er to ld M r. G reg o ry th at “h e w asn ’t g o in g to let h im slid e w ith
th at so h e k n o ck ed h im

o f f .”

D aw n D i c ke r s on, Pe titio n er’s sister-in -law

, testif ied th at P etitio n er liv ed w ith h er an d

M o n tez D ick erso n in 2 0 0 3

. S h e t e s t i f i e d t h at sh e w as w ith P etitio n er o n th e d ay o f th e

4sh o o tin g

. S h e testif ied th at th ey w ere at h o me th at m o rn in g , an d th at n ig h t, th ey w ere at
L acreissa N ew b ell’s h o u se f o r a b irth d ay p arty f

o r M o n t e z D i c k erso n

. T h ey w en t to M s. N ew b ell’s h o u se in th e af tern o o n an d stay ed u n til af ter 1 1 :0 0 p .m

. S h e testif

ied th at sh e h ad

n ev er seen D ef

en d an t carry in g a n in e m illim eter h an d g u n

.

L acreissa N ew b ell testif

ied th at sh e h ad a p arty at h er h o u se f o r P etitio n er o n th e d ate

o f th e sh o o tin g

. S h e testif ied th at P etitio n er arriv ed w ith M o n tez an d D aw n D ick erso n

so m etim e b etw een 3 :0 0 an d 4 :0 0 p .m

.

P o st-co n victio n h ea rin g

A s n o ted in th e o rig in al o p in io n f iled in th is case, P e t i t i o n er’s ap p ellate co u n sel
ack n o w led g ed at th e p o st-co n v ictio n h earin g th at h e d id n o t ch allen g e th e su f f icien cy o f th e

co n v ictin g ev id en ce o n d irect ap p eal. H e testif ied th at h e rev iew ed th e reco rd in p rep arin g th e ap p ellate b rief

. H e b eliev ed th at th e ev id en ce at trial w as leg ally su f f icien t to s u p p o rt th e in d icted o f

f en se o f f irst d eg ree m

u rd er an d th e co n v i c t e d o f f en se o f f acilitatio n to

co m m it f irst d eg ree m

u rd er, alth o u g h h e d id n o t r e c a ll ev id en ce sh o w in g th at P etitio n er k n ew o f an o th er p erso n i n t e n d in g to k ill M r. Jo h n so n

. A p p ellate co u n sel testif ied

, “[ i] t’s

g en erally tru e th at if th e ev id en ce w as leg ally su f f icien t to su p p o rt th e g reater o f f en se it

w o u ld also b e su f

f icien t to su p p o rt a lesser in clu d ed o f f en se.” H e stated h is reaso n s f o r n o t ch allen g in g th e su f

f icien cy o f th e ev id en ce o n d irect ap p eal as f o llo w s:

[ A p p ellate co u n sel] : I d o n ’ t r e c a ll an y cases w h ere th e a p p e l l a t e

c o u rts rev ersed a co n v ictio n b ased o n in su f f icien t e v id en ce w h ile sim u ltan eo u sly
h o ld in g th at th ere w as su f f icien t ev id en ce to

su p p o rt a g reater ch arg e.

T h e S tate: A ll rig h t. Is th at w h y y o u d i d n ’ t i n clu d e th is

as an issu e?

[ A p p ellate co u n sel] : I th in k th at m ay h av e b een o n e reaso n

. T h ere

– I th in k also g iv en th e p ro o f t h a t co n n ected [ P e t i tio n er] to th e m

u rd er w eap o n in th e car f ro m w h ere th e sh o ts w ere f ired

, t h a t th at

arg u ab ly co u ld h av e su p p o rted a v e r d ict f o r f acilitatio n

.

5A n a ly sis

S ta n d a rd o f review

R elief p u rsu an t to a p o st-co n v ictio n p ro ceed in g is av ailab le o n ly w h ere th e p etitio n er d em o n strates th at h is o r h er “ c o n v i c t i o 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

. T o p rev ail o n a p o st-co n v ictio n claim

o f a co n stitu tio n al v io latio n , th e p etitio n er m u st p ro v e h is o r h er alleg atio n s o f f act b y “clear

an d co n v in cin g ev id en ce.” T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 0

– 3 0

– 1 1 0 (f ); see M o m o n v. S ta te

, 1 8
S .W.3 d 1 5 2

, 1 5 6 (T en n

. 1 9 9 9 ). T h i s c o u r t w i ll n o t o v ertu rn a p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt’s
f in d in g s o f f

act u n less th e p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev id en ce is o th erw ise. P yla n t v. S ta te

, 2 6 3
S .W.3 d 8 5 4

, 8 6 7 (T en n

. 2 0 0 8 ); S exto n v. S ta te

, 1 5 1 S .W.3 d 5 2 5

, 5 3 1 ( T e n n

. C rim

. A p p

. 2 0 0 4 ). We w ill d ef

er to th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt’s f in d in g s w ith resp ect to th e w itn esses’
cred ib ility

, th e w eig h t an d v alu e o f t h e i r testim o n y , an d th e reso lu tio n o f f actu al issu es

p resen ted b y th e ev id en ce. M o m o n , 1 8 S .W.3 d at 1 5 6

. With resp ect to issu es raisin g m ix ed

q u estio n s o f law an d f

act, h o w ev er, o u r rev iew is d e n o v o w ith n o p resu mp t i o n o f

co rrectn ess. S

ee, e.g ., S m ith v. S ta te , 3 5 7 S .W.3 d 3 2 2 , 3 5 5 (T en n . 2 0 1 1 ).

R etro a ctive a

p p lica tio n o

f S ta te v. P a rker

In d eterm in in g w h eth er P etitio n er’s ap p ellate co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to raise o n d irect ap p eal th e su f f icien cy o f th e co n v ictin g ev id en ce, w e m u st f irst ad d ress th e issu e o f w h eth er th e ru lin g in S ta te v. P a rker

, 3 5 0 S .W.3 d 8 8 3 (T en n

. 2 0 1 1 ), is ap p licab le.

A p p ellate co u n sel testif

ied at th e p o st-co n v ictio n h earin g th at h e relied u p o n case law th at

w as sp ecif

icall y o v e r r u l e d b y P a rker in d ecid in g n o t to ch allen g e th e su f f icien cy o f th e

ev id en ce o n d irect ap p eal. H e also testif ied th at h e b eliev ed th ere w as ev id en ce at trial to

su p p o rt P etitio n er’s f

acilitatio n co n v ictio n

.

In P a rker

, th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt rev iew ed th e su f f icien cy o f th e co n v ictin g

ev id en ce w h ere th e d ef

en d an t h ad b een in d ic t e d f o r f elo n y m u rd er b u t co n v icted o f th e lesser in clu d ed o f

f en se o f seco n d d eg ree m

u rd er. T h e co u rt reco g n ized

, “[ t] h e issu e b ef o re

u s is w h eth er, in sp ite o f

th e in su f f icien t ev id en ce to su p p o rt th e o f f en se o f seco n d d eg ree

m u rd er, th e co n v ictio n sh o u ld n ev erth eless b e af f i r me d b ecau se th ere w as su f f icien t

ev id en ce to su p p o rt th e g reater o f f en se o f f elo n y m u rd er.” 3 5 0 S .W.3 d at 9 0 5

. T h is co u rt, rely in g o n S ta te v. M

ello n s , 5 5 7 S .W.2 d 4 9 7 (T en n . 1 9 7 7 ), co n clu d ed th at sin ce th e p ro o f

w as su f f icien t to su p p o rt th e g reater

, i n d i c t e d o f f en se, th e co n v ictio n f

o r seco n d d eg ree

m u rd er “‘ su rv iv e[ d ] d esp ite th e d ef icien t p ro o f o f its elem en ts.’” P a rker

, 3 5 0 S .W.3 d

. at
9 0 5 (q u o tin g S ta te v. Jo sh u a L yn n P a rker

, 2 0 1 0 WL 3 7 0 6 0 9 0

, at * 1 2 ). O u r su p rem e co u rt

rev ersed th e co n v ictio n , o v erru lin g M ello n s , an d h eld th at “a co u rt rev iew in g th e su f f icien cy

6o f th e ev id en ce m u st d eterm in e w h eth er each elem en t o f th e co n v ictio n o f f en se is su p p o rted
b y su f f icien t p ro o f

.” Id

. at 9 0 9

. T h e co u rt stated

, “w h en rev iew in g a co n v icted d ef en d an t’s
claim th at th e ev id en ce is n o t su f f icien t to su p p o rt h is o r h er co n v ictio n , th e rev iew m u st b e

u n d ertak en w ith resp ect to th e crim e o f w h ich th e d ef en d an t w as co n v icted

, n o t th e crim e

w ith w h ich h e w as ch arg ed .” Id . at 9 0 7 (citin g Ja ckso n v. V irg in ia

, 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 2 4 , n

. 1 6 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 5 6 0 (1 9 7 9 )).

T h e S tate asserts th at th e su p rem e co u rt’s d ecisio n in P a rker d id n o t an n o u n ce a n ew

co n stitu tio n a l r u l e o f law

, an d th eref o re, it sh o u ld n o t b e ap p lied retro activ ely

, citin g M ea d o w s v. S ta te

, 8 4 9 S .W.2 d 7 4 8

, 7 5 4 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ) (“[ A ] n ew state co n stitu tio n al ru le is

to b e r e t r o activ ely ap p lied to a claim f o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief if th e n ew ru le m aterially

en h an ces th e in teg rity an d reliab ility o f th e f act f in d in g p ro cess o f th e trial.”). P etitio n er

co n ced es th at P a rker d id n o t an n o u n ce a n ew ru le o f law an d reco g n izes th at th e h o ld in g in

P a rker relied u p o n w ell-settled law in T en n essee. P eti t i o n er co n ten d s, h o w ev er, th at it is

p r e c i s e ly b ecau se th e h o ld in g in P a rker reco g n ized an alread y estab lish ed ru le o f law

, “[ t] h ere is n o n eed f

o r retro activ e ap p licatio n o f th e h o ld in g in P a rker in o r d e r f o r [ P etiti o n e r ] t o c o m

p lain th at th e ev id en ce in h is case w as n o t su f f icien t to su p p o rt h is

co n v ictio n . . . [ b ecau se] , as reco g n ized b y th e o p in io n in P a rker

, it h as lo n g b een th e law
in T en n essee th at a [ d ] ef

en d an t can d o j u st th at.”

We n o te th at in p o st-co n v ictio n cases, t h e retro activ e ap p licatio n o f a n ew

co n stitu tio n al ru le an aly sis is g en erally relev an t in th e co n tex t o f a p o st-co n v ictio n p etitio n th at is f iled o u tsid e o f t h e o n e-y ear statu te o f lim itatio n s. S ee T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 0 -3 0

- 1 0 2 (b )(1 ) (allo w in g f

o r to llin g o f th e statu te o f lim itatio n s w h e r e th e claim in th e p etitio n is b ased u p o n an ap p ellate co u rt d ecisio n estab lish in g a n ew ru le o f co n stitu tio n al law th at

req u ires retro activ e ap p licatio n ). T h at is n o t th e case h ere. T h ere is n o t an issu e reg ard in g th e tim elin ess o f P etitio n er’s p o st-co n v ictio n p etitio n

. R ath er, th e iss u e is w h eth er P etitio n er’s ap p ellate co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r rely in g u p o n case law

, d ecid ed p rio r to th e

su p rem e co u rt’s ru lin g in P a rker

, th at seem ed to h o ld th at a co n v ictio n f o r a lesser in clu d ed

o f f en se w o u ld b e u p h eld

, n o tw ith stan d in g th e lack o f ev id en ce to su p p o rt th e lesser in clu d ed

o f f en se, w h ere th e ev id en ce is su f f icien t to su p p o rt a co n v ictio n f o r t h e g r e a t er ch arg ed

o f f en se. S ee S ta te v. M

ello n s , 5 5 7 S .W.2 d at 4 9 9

.

In P a rker

, th e su p r e me c o u r t ex am in ed th e v iab ility o f th e h o ld in g in M ello n s an d

co n clu d ed th at “ [t ]he p ro p o sitio n f o r w h ich th e m aj o rity [ o f th e in term ed iate ap p ellate co u rt]
relied o n is, in f

act, m ere d ictu m .” 3 5 0 S .W.3 d at 9 0 7

. T h e co u rt n o ted th at M ello n s w as

p red icated u p o n a statu te th at h ad lo n g sin ce b een rep ealed

. Id

. (citin g T en n

. C o d e A n n

. §

4 0 -2 5 2 0 (1 9 5 5 )). T h e co u rt b ased its co n clu sio n o n “su b seq u en t d ev elo p m en ts in th e law ,”
in clu d in g th e U n ited S tates S u p rem e C o u rt’s h o ld in g in Ja ckso n v. V irg in ia

, 4 4 3 U

. S

. at
3 1 6

, 9 9 S

. C t

. 2 7 8 1

, w h ich p ro v id ed th at d u e p ro cess req u ires th at ev ery elem en t o f a

7co n v icted o f f en se b e p ro v en b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t an d T en n essee R u le o f A p p ellate

P ro ced u re 1 3 (e), w h ich p ro v id es th at “[ f ] in d in g s o f g u ilt in crim in al actio n s

. . . sh all b e set asid e if th e e v i d e n c e i s i n su f f icien t to su p p o rt th e f

in d in g s b y th e trier o f f

act b ey o n d a

reaso n ab le d o u b t.” T h e co u rt also n o ted its 1 9 9 9 d ecisio n in S ta te v

. B u r n s , i n w h ich th e

co u rt ad o p ted th e test f

o r an aly zin g lesser-in clu d ed o f

f en ses. 6 S .W.3 d 4 5 3 (T en n

. 1 9 9 9 ).

In S ta te v. E ly

, th e co u rt clearly stated th at a lesser-in clu d ed o f f en se sh o u ld b e c h a r g e d to th e j u ry o n ly w h en “th e ev id en ce is leg ally su f f icien t to su p p o rt a co n v ictio n f o r th e lesserin clu d ed o f

f en se.” 4 8 S .W.3 d 7 1 0

, 7 2 2 (T en n

. 2 0 0 1 ) (citin g B u rn s , 6 S .W.3 d at 4 6 7

, 4 6 9 ).

T h e co u rt also n o ted th at th e leg islatu re “ech o ed [ its] h o ld in g in B u rn s w ith its p assag e o f

T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated sectio n 4 0 -1 8 -1 1 0 .” P a r k e r , 3 5 0 S .W.3 d at 3 0 8

. T h e co u rt

co n c l u d e d

, “ [ w ] ith th e elim in atio n o f th e statu to ry su p p o rt u p o n w h ich M ello n s relied

,
co m b in ed w ith th e su b se q u e n t sig n if ican t d ev elo p m en ts in o u r lesser-in clu d ed o f f en se j u risp ru d en ce an d statu tes, w e are f o rced to co n clu d e t h at M ello n s d o es n o t co n tro l th e

o u tco m e o f th is case.” Id

. at 9 0 9

. T h e co u rt also clarif ied its d ecisio n in S ta te v. B o lin

, 9 2 2
S .W.2 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 5 (T en n . 1 9 9 6 ), in w h ich th e co u rt cited M ello n s . T h e co u rt stated

,

[ a] s in M ello n s , h o w ev er, th is C o u rt d id n o t actu ally h o ld in S ta te v. B o lin [ citatio n o m itted ] th at a d ef en d an t m ay stan d co n v icted o f a lesser-in clu d ed

o f f en se w h ere th ere is n o p r o o f as to an elem en t n ecessary to su p p o rt th e lesser-in clu d ed o f

f e n se, ev en if th e p ro o f w o u ld su p p o rt th e g reater

o f f en se.”

P a rker , 3 5 0 S .W.3 d at 9 1 0

.

O u r su p rem e co u rt m ad e clear b y its h o ld in g i n P a rker th at lo n g -stan d in g law

p rev en ts a d ef

en d an t f ro m b ein g co n v icted o f a lesser-in clu d ed o f f en se th at is n o t su p p o rted
b y th e p ro o f

, ev en w h en th e g reater charg ed o f f en se is su p p o rted b y th e p ro o f

. T h eref o re,

w e ag ree w ith P etitio n er in th is in stan ce. T h e S tate’s arg u m en t is m isp laced

. T h e an aly sis

o f w h eth er P a rker

an n o u n ced a n ew ru le o f co n stitu tio n al law an d w h eth er th e h o ld in g in

P a rker sh o u ld b e retro activ ely ap p lied is n o t n ecessary in th e p resen t case. If

, as b o th p arties
assert, th e h o ld in g in P a rker w as b ased o n alread y estab lish ed law in T en n essee, w h ich

ex isted at th e tim e o f P etitio n er’s co n v ictio n , th en an ap p ellate co u n sel co u ld a rg u a b ly h av e b een d ef icien t f o r f ailin g to r a i s e th e issu e o f su f f icien cy o f th e ev id en ce o n ap p eal. A s stated in o u r o rig in al o p in io n f iled in th is case,

P a rker su p p o rts P etitio n er’s assertio n th at h is ap p ellate co u n sel sh o u ld
h av e ch allen g ed th e su f

f icien cy o f th e ev id en ce to su p p o rt h is co n v ictio n

. In o th er w o rd s, ap p ellate co u n sel sh o u ld n o t h av e relied u p o n M ello n s f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th at as lo n g as th ere w as su f f icien t ev id en ce to su stain th e

co n v ictio n o f th e ch arg ed o f f en se o f p rem ed itated f

irst d eg ree m

u rd er, th en

8P etitio n er’s ch allen g e to th e su f f icien cy o f th e ev id en ce f

o r th e co n v ictio n

o f an y lesser-in clu d ed o f

f en se w o u ld au to m atically b e w ith o u t m erit.

D ickerso n , 2 0 1 2 WL 2 5 6 4 3 7 6 , at * 1 2

.

T h is, h o w ev er, d o es n o t en d o u r an aly sis. Wh ile, acco rd in g to th e an aly sis in P a rker

,

a p p ellate co u n sel sh o u ld n o t h av e relied u p o n M ello n s in d ecid in g w h eth er o r n o t t o ch allen g e th e su f

f icien cy o f th e ev id en ce, co u n sel m ay n o t h av e b een in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g
to raise th e issu e if th e ev id en ce at trial w as, in f act, su f f icien t to su p p o rt th e lesser-in clu d ed
f acilitatio n co n v ictio n

.

S u fficien cy o

f th e evid en ce

P etitio n er asserts th at ap p ellate co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce w as d e f

icien t b ecau se th ere

w as “n o ev id en ce p resen ted at trial th at [ P etitio n er] k n ew an o th er in ten d ed to k ill [ Jo h n so n ]

,

a req u ired elem en t” o f th e o f f en se o f f acilitatio n , f

o r w h ich P etitio n er w as co n v icted

. P etitio n er also p o in ts to ap p ellate co u n sel’s testim o n y at th e p o st-co n v ictio n h earin g th at h e d id n o t recall an y ev id en ce b ein g p resen ted at trial th at P etitio n er k n ew an o th er in ten d ed to
k ill th e v ictim

. In o rd er to d eterm in e w h eth er ap p ellate co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce w as d ef

icien t

o r w h eth er P etitio n er w as p rej u d iced b y an y d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce, w e m

u st f irst an aly ze

w h eth er th e ev id en ce at trial w as su f f icien t to su p p o rt P etitio n er’s f acilitatio n co n v ictio n

.

A v erd ict o f g u ilty

, ren d ered b y a j u ry an d “ap p ro v ed b y th e trial j u d g e, accred its th e testim o n y ” o f th e S tate’s w itn esses an d reso lv es all co n f licts in th e testim o n y in f

av o r o f th e S tate. S ta te v. C

a zes , 8 7 5 S .W.2 d 2 5 3

, 2 5 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 4 ); S ta te v. H a rris

, 8 3 9 S .W.2 d 5 4

, 7 5 (T en n

. 1 9 9 2 ). T h u s, a g u ilty v erd ict rem o v es th e p resu m p tio n o f in n o cen ce an d rep laces
it w ith o n e o f g u ilt. S ta te v. B la n d

, 9 5 8 S .W.2 d 6 5 1

, 6 5 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ); S ta te v. T u g g le

, 6 3 9
S .W.2 d 9 1 3

, 9 1 4 (T en n

. 1 9 8 2 )

. H e n c e , o n ap p eal, th e b u rd en o f p ro o f rests w ith th e d ef en d an t to d em o n strate th e in su f f icien cy o f th e co n v ictin g ev id en ce. Id

.

T h e relev an t q u estio n th e rev iew in g co u rt m u st an sw er is w h eth er an y ratio n al trier

o f f act co u ld h av e f

o u n d th e accu sed g u ilty o f ev ery elem en t o f t h e o f f e n se b ey o n d a

reaso n ab le d o u b t. T en n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 1 3 (e); Ja ckso n v. V irg in ia

, 4 4 3 U .S

. 3 0 7

, 3 1 8

– 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ). In m ak in g th is d ecisio n , w e are to acco rd th e S tate “th e stro n g est leg itim ate v iew

o f th e ev id en ce as w ell as all reaso n ab le an d leg itim ate in f eren ces th at m ay b e d raw n th eref ro m .” S ee T u g g le

, 6 3 9 S .W.2 d at 9 1 4

. A s su ch

, th is co u rt is p reclu d ed f ro m

re-w eig h in g o r reco n sid erin g th e ev id en ce w h en ev alu atin g th e co n v ictin g p ro o f

. S ta te v.
M o rg a n , 9 2 9 S .W.2 d 3 8 0

, 3 8 3 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 ); S t a t e v. M a tth ew s , 8 0 5 S .W.2 d

7 7 6

, 7 7 9 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 0 ). M o reo v er, w e m ay n o t su b stitu te o u r o w n “in f eren ces f o r th o se d raw n b y th e trier o f f act f ro m circu m stan tial ev id en ce.” M a tth ew s , 8 0 5 S .W.2 d

9at 7 7 9

. F u rth er, q u estio n s co n cern in g th e c red ib ility o f th e w itn esses an d th e w eig h t an d

v alu e t o b e g iv en to ev id en ce, as w ell as all f actu al issu es raised b y su ch ev id en ce, are

reso lv ed b y

th e trier o f

f act an d n o t th e ap p ellate co u rts. S ta te v. P ru ett

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

, 5 6 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 0 ).

T h e g u ilt o f a d ef

en d an t, in clu d in g an y f

act req u ired to b e p ro v ed

, m ay b e p red icated

u p o n d irect ev id en ce, circu m stan tial ev id en ce, o r a co m b in atio n o f b o th d irect an d
circu m stan tial ev id en ce. S ee S ta te v. P en d

erg ra s s , 1 3 S .W.3 d 3 8 9

, 3 9 2

– 9 3 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 9 ). E v en th o u g h co n v ictio n s m ay b e estab lish ed b y d if f eren t f o rm s o f ev id en ce, th e stan d ard o f rev iew f

o r th e su f f icien cy o f th at ev id en ce is th e sam e w h eth er th e co n v ictio n is b ased u p o n d irect o r circu m stan tial ev id en ce. S ee S ta te v. D o ra n tes

, 3 3 1 S .W.3 d 3 7 0

, 3 7 9 (T en n

. 2 0 1 1 ). A s su ch

, all reaso n ab le in f eren ces f ro m ev id en ce are to b e d raw n in f av o r o f
th e S tate. S ta te v. C

a b b a g e , 5 7 1 S .W.2 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 5 (T en n . 1 9 7 8 ); S ee T u g g le , 6 3 9 S .W.2 d
at 9 1 4

.

T h e o f f en se o f f acilitatio n req u ires th at a d ef en d an t, w ith o u t th e in ten t to p ro m o te o r assist in th e co m m iss i o n o f t h e o f f en se, k n o w in g ly f

u rn ish es su b stan tial assistan ce in th e

co m m issio n o f th e o f

f en se an d th at th e d ef

en d an t k n ew th e o th er p erso n in ten d ed to co m m it

t h e o f f e n s e

. T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 3 9 -1 1 -4 0 3 (a). T h e ap p licab le d ef in itio n o f f

irst d eg re e

mu r d e r i s “[ a] p rem ed itated an d in ten tio n al k illin g o f an o th er.” T en n

. C o d e A n n

. §
3 9 -1 3 -2 0 2 (a)(1 ). P rem ed itatio n n ecessitates “a p rev io u sly f o rm ed d esig n o r in ten t to k ill,”
S ta te v. West

, 8 4 4 S .W.2 d 1 4 4

, 1 4 7 (T en n .1 9 9 2 ) (citatio n s o m itted ), an d “an act d o n e af ter th e ex ercise o f ref

lectio n an d j u d g m en t

. . . [ m ean in g ] th at th e in ten t to k ill m u st h av e b een f o rm ed p rio r to th e act itself .” T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 2 (d ). In o rd er to su p p o rt
P etitio n er’s co n v ictio n f

o r f acilitatio n o f f

irst d e g ree m

u rd er, th e ev id en ce m

u st estab lish
th at P etitio n er k n ew th at an o th er p erso n in ten d ed to co m m it p rem ed itated m u rd er an d th at
P etitio n er f

u rn ish ed su b stan tial assistan ce in th e co m m issio n o f th e o f f en se. S ee id

.

T h e p ro o f clearly estab lish es th at th e m u rd er w as p rem ed itated

. V iew ed in th e lig h t

m o st f av o rab le to th e S tate, a v eh icle w ith at least tw o in d iv id u als in sid e d ro v e u p to w h ere th e v ictim s w ere stan d in g in a p ark in g lo t an d sto p p ed

. A t least o n e g u n m an f ired m u ltip le
sh o ts at th e v ictim s, an d th e car th en f led th e scen e. T h e p ro o f estab lish es th at tw o w eap o n s

w ere f ired

, an d o n e o f th e w eap o n s w as u sed b y P etitio n er f iv e d ay s af

ter th e m u rd er w h en h e sh o t at M s. F rierso n ’s telev isio n

. T h e S tate arg u es th at th e j u r y co u ld h av e reaso n ab ly

co n clu d ed th at P etitio n er assisted in th e m u rd er o f E ric Jo h n so n

. T h e ev id en ce th at th e S tate relies u p o n in its assertio n th at th ere w as p ro o f o f f acilitatio n is M s. T h o m

p so n ’s testim o n y th at sh e saw tw o m en in sid e th e sh o o ter’s car an d th at o n e o f th em w as f irin g a g u n ; M s. D o u g lass’ t e s tim o n y th at sh e also saw tw o m en in th e car f leein g th e p ark in g lo t af

ter sh e h eard g u n sh o ts; an d M s. F rierso n ’s testim o n y th at P etitio n er to ld h er h e w as w ith “a co u p le

o f h is h o m e b o y s” w h en Jo h n so n w as k illed

. T h e S tate f u rth er ass erts th at th e j u ry co u ld

1 0h av e f

o u n d P etitio n er’s co n f

essio n s to F rierso n an d T erren ce G reg o ry , t h at h e k illed M r. Jo h n so n , n o t cred ib le.

We co n clu d e th at alth o u g h th e p ro o f o f f acilitatio n is n o t o v erw h el mi n g , th e j u ry

co u ld h av e in f

erred th at P etitio n er w as th e seco n d in d iv id u al in th e car, b u t th at h e w as n o t th e sh o o ter; th at o n e o f th e w eap o n s u sed b y th e sh o o t er to k ill th e v ictim w as a n in e

m illim eter h an d g u n p ro v id ed th e sh o o ter b y P eti t i o n e r ; a n d th at P etitio n er k n ew th at th e sh o o ter in ten d ed to k ill th e v ictim b ecau se h e w as in th e car w ith th e sh o o ter an d th e sh o o ter

u sed h is g u n to co m m it th e m u rd er. N o n e o f th e w itn esses co u ld id en tif y P etitio n er as th e sh o o ter. T w o w itn esses testif ied th at th ere w ere tw o p eo p le in sid e th e sh o o ter’s car. B allistics ev id en ce sh o w ed th at P etitio n er w as in p o ssessio n o f o n e o f th e m u rd er w eap o n s f o u r d ay s af

ter th e m u rd er.

A s in stru cted b y th is co u rt in th e o rd er g ran tin g P etitio n er’s req u est f o r re h e a r i n g , b o th p arties cite an d ad d ress th e ap p licab ility o f S t a t e v

. Jo sep h B ern ette D river

, N o

. M 2 0 1 1 -0 0 5 3 6 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 1 2 WL 3 7 7 6 6 7 1 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. A u g

. 3 1

, 2 0 1 2 ). In th at

case, th e d ef

en d an t ch allen g ed h is co n v ictio n f o r f acilitatio n o f ag g rav ated ro b b ery as a lesser-in clu d ed o f

f en se o f ag g rav ated ro b b ery

. S p ecif ically

, th e d ef

en d an t asserted th at th e

ev id en ce w as n o t su f

f icien t th at h e h ad k n o w led g e o f th e ro b b ery o r th at h e su b stan tially
assisted th e ro b b er. In th at case, as in th e p resen t c a s e , t h e r e w a s ev id en ce at trial th at

an o th er i n d i v i d u a l w h o w as n ev er ap p reh en d ed w as in v o lv ed in th e co m m issio n o f th e

o f f en se. A p an el o f th is co u rt h eld th at th e j u ry co u ld h av e reaso n ab ly co n clu d ed

, b ased o n

ev id en ce o f an o th er in d iv id u al, th at th e d ef en d an t f acilitated th e ro b b ery

. T h is co u rt stated
in th at o p in io n ,

A s an in itial m atter, th is C o u rt d istin g u ish es th e f acts in P a rker f

ro m th o se in th is case. In P a r k

e r , t h e p r o o f d id n o t su p p o rt o n e o f th e elem en ts

req u ired to su stain a seco n d d eg ree m u rd er co n v ictio n

. H ere, as o u tlin ed
in d etail b elo w , th e ev id en ce is su f f icien t to su p p o rt th e j u ry ’s f in d in g th at th e D ef en d an t’s actio n s satisf

ied th e elem en ts o f f

acilitatio n o f ag g rav ated

ro b b ery , ev en if so m e o f th e p ro o f p resen ted is in co n sisten t w ith an elem en t

o r eleme n t s o f f

acilitatio n

. In co n sisten t evid en ce, w h ich m a

y b e rejected
b y a ju ry, is n o t syn o n

ym o u s w ith in su

fficien t, o r a la ck o

f, evid en ce o f a n elem en t.

D river , 2 0 1 2 WL 3 7 7 6 6 7 1 , at * 9 . (E m p h asis ad d ed ).

We co n clu d e th at th e ev id en ce w as su f f icien t i n t h i s case to su stain P etitio n er’s

co n v ictio n f

o r f acilitatio n o f

f irst d eg ree m

u rd er.

1 1In effectiven ess o f co u n sel

“T o estab lish in ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel, th e p etitio n er b e a r s th e b u rd en o f

p ro v in g b o th th at co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce w as d ef

icien t an d th at th e d ef

icien cy p rej u d iced th e d ef en se.” G o a d v. S ta te

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

, 3 6 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 6 ) (citin g S trickla n d v. Wa sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 (1 9 8 4 )). In ev alu atin g w h eth er th e

p etitio n er h as m et th is b u rd en , th is C o u rt m u st d eterm in e w h eth er co u n s e l ’ s p e r f o rm an ce

w as w ith in th e ran g e o f

co m p eten ce req u ired o f

atto rn ey s in crim in al cases. S ee B a xter 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 p rin cip les f

o r d eterm in in g th e ef

f ectiv en ess o f co u n sel at trial an d o n ap p eal are th e sam e in a p o st-co n v ictio n p ro ceed in g

. S ee C a m p b ell v. S ta te

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

, 5 9 6 (T en n . 1 9 9 5 ). A p etitio n er alleg in g in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f ap p ellate co u n sel m u st p ro o f
b o th th at 1 ) ap p ellate co u n sel w as o b j ectiv ely u n reaso n ab le in f ailin g to raise a p articu lar
issu e o n ap p eal, an d 2 ) ab sen t co u n sel’s d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce, th ere w as a reaso n ab le

p ro b ab ility th at th e p etitio n er’s ap p eal w o u ld h av e b een su ccessf u l b ef o re th e state’s h ig h est

co u rt. S ee S m ith v. R o b b in s , 5 2 8 U .S . 2 5 9 , 2 8 5 (2 0 0 0 ).

A p p ellate co u n sel is n o t co n stitu tio n ally req u ired to raise ev ery co n ceiv ab le issu e o n

ap p eal. C

a rp en ter v. S ta te , 1 2 6 S .W.3 d 8 7 9

, 8 8 7 (T en n

. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e d ecisio n as to w h ich
issu es to raise o n ap p eal is g en erally w i t h i n a p p ellate co u n sel’s d iscretio n an d “sh o u ld b e

g i v e n c o n sid erab le d ef

eren ce

. . . if su ch ch o ices are w ith in th e ran g e o f co m p et e n c e

req u ired o f

atto rn ey s in crim in al cases.” Id

.

B ecau se w e co n clu d e th at th e ev id en ce w as leg ally su f f icien t to su p p o rt P etitio n er’s

co n v ictio n o n ap p eal, w e can n o t th eref o re co n clu d e th at ap p ellate c o u n s e l ’s p erf o rm an ce

w as d ef icien t f o r f ailin g to ch allen g e th e su f f icien cy o f th e ev id en ce. F u rth erm o re, P etitio n er co u ld n o t h av e b een p rej u d iced b y co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce, ev en if it w as d ef icien t,

w h ere h e w o u ld n o t b e en titled to relief o n ap p eal h ad ap p ellate c o u n s e l r a i sed th e issu e. T h eref o re, P etitio n er is n o t en titled to relief

.

C O N C L U S IO N

T h e j u d g m en t o f

th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt is af f irm ed

.

_ _ _ ________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T H O M A S T . WO O D A L L , JU D G E

1 2