### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary 11, 200 5
AN TON IO JAC KSON v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. P -25685 Joseph B. Dailey, Jud ge

No. W2004-00328-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled March 29, 2005

The Appe llant, Antonio J ackson, a ppeals the de nial of his pe tition for post-c onviction relief by the Shelby CountyCriminal Court. On appeal, Jackson contends that he was de nied the ef fe ct ive assistance o f

c o u n s e l at t

r ia l. Sp e c if

ic a ll y , h e c o n te n d s th a t h is tria l att o r n e y s w e r e in e f f e c ti v e by faili ng to p ur su e a n a lib i de fe ns e a ndby faili ng to p ro pe rl y

inv e sti g ate a nd pr e pa

re the c a se fo r t

ri a l. After revie w, we a ffirm the de nial of the pe tition.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and J. C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

J uni S. Gang uli, Memphis, Tennessee , Attorney for the A ppellant, Antonio J ackson.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Michael Moore , Solicitor Genera l; J . Ross Dy er, Assistant Attorney

Gene ral; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and B etsy

Carnesda le, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

P roce dural Hi story

I n 1997, the Appellant, a long w ith six other c o-def endants, wa s indicted for f irst deg ree pr e me dit a te d mu rd e r ande sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d kidn app ing . T he re ta liatio n kill ing of the vic tim ste mme d f

ro m a c on fl ic t be tw e e n tw o Me mph is g a ng s, the Gang ste r D isc ipl e s a ndthe Vi c e L or ds

. Two fe llow gang members, Christopher James and Jarv is Sh ip p , te stified for the State and implicated the Appellant in the crimes. Shipp testified that in the execution-sty led murder, the victi m was place d on the g round, and the Appellant shot the victim in the head with a shot gu n

. Be ca u s e t he Ap pe lla nt w a s charg e d w ithc apit a l mu rd e r, tw o atto rn e y s w e re app oin te d to re pr e se nt h im. Following a jury

trial, the Appe llant was convic ted of fa cilitati o n o f fi rs t deg ree murder and espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping . As a re sult of these convic tions, the Appellant is curre ntly serving-2-

an ef fec tive fifty -y ear

sentenc e in the De partment of Correc tion. The convictions wer e aff irmed on direc t appea l. State v. Antonio Jac kson , 52 S.W .3d 661 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001)

. On September

21, 2001, the Appellant f iled a pro s e petition for p ost-conviction re lief, alleg ing among other grounds, the ineffe ctive assist ance of counsel. Following the appointment of counsel, a n amende d petition was filed. On November 24, 2003, an evidentiary hearing w as held, at which the A ppellant and his two trial attorne y s testified. After tak i ng the matter unde r a dv ise me nt , th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt de nie d r e lie f b y

writt e n o rd e r o n Jan ua

ry , 2 7, 20 04 . T his timely appea l followed.

Ana lys is
On appe al, the Appellant asserts that his trial attorney s were ineffe ctive by failing to pursue an alibi def

ense and by

failing to adequately

investigate the ca se and pr epar e for trial.

I n o rd ert o s u cc ee d o n a p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n cl ai m , t h e Ap p el l an t b ea rs t h e b u rd en o f s h o wi n g, by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, the a lleg ations set forth in his petition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 110(f) (2003). To support a Six th Amendment claim of ine ffe ctive assistanc e of counsel, the Appellant must demonstrate that counsel’s re prese ntat ion fell below the r ang e of c ompetence demande d of attorne y s in criminal case s. Ba x te r v . R os e , 523 S.W .2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975) . Under Strickland v. W

ashington , 4 66 U.S

. 66 8, 68 7, 10 4 S. Ct. 20 52 , 2 06 4 ( 19 84 ), the Ap pe lla nt mus t establish (1) deficient re prese ntation and (2) pr ejudice r esulting f rom the def

iciency . The pe titioner is not entitl ed to the benef it of hindsight, may not se cond-g uess a rea sonably based tria l strateg y , and cannot cr i t icize a sound, but unsucce ssful, tactica l decision made during the course of the proce eding

. Ad

k ins v . S tate , 911 S.W .2d 334, 347 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). This defere nce to the tactica l decisions of trial coun s el i s dependant upon a showing that the dec isions were ma de af ter adequate pre paration. Coo pe r v . S tate , 847 S.W .2d 521, 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)

. The issues of de ficient p er fo rm an ce by counsel a nd possible prejudice to the defe nse ar e mix ed questions of l aw and fac t. State v. Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). “A trial court’ s findings of

fact underlying a

claim of inef

fec tive assistance of counse l are revie wed on a ppeal unde r a de novo standard, a ccom p an i ed wi th a pre sumption t hat those finding s are corr ect unless the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e is otherwise .” Fi e lds v . S tate , 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001) (c iti ng Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ); He nle y v . S tate , 960 S.W .2d 572, 578 (Tenn

. 1997). Howe ver,
co n cl u s i o n s of law ar e r e v i e w e d u n d e r a p u r e l y de novo standard, w ith no presumption of
corr ectne ss. Fields , 40 S.W .3d at 458.

I. F ail ur e to pr e se nt

an a libi de fens e The Appe llant contends that his trial att orney s’ fa ilure to ca ll an alibi witness constituted ine ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l. H e a sse rt s tha t at the tim e the c ri me s we re c omm itt e d, he wa s w ith his girlf riend, L atoy a Knox, and that she would have testified to this fac t at trial. When a petitioner claims that trial counsel failed t o prese nt a particular witness in support of his defe nse, the Appe llantT h e A p p e llan t’s b rie f m issta te s the b u rd e n a s tha t o f p ro o f b y a “p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e .” 1

-3- should present that witness at the evidentiary hearing. Bl ac k v . S tate , 794 S.W .2d 752, 757 (Tenn. C ri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 0 ). Be ca u s e t h e A p p el l an tfa i l ed t o p re s en tL at o y a K n o x att h e e v i d en t i ar y h ea ri n g, we have no way of knowing whether her testimony would have supported an al i b i d efense. Alleg ations of def

icient per formanc e must be prove d by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. 1

Moreove r, when questioned at the post-conviction hea ring as to what Ms. Knox’s testimony would have be en, or w hat she mig ht have sa id that day , the Appellant responded, “ I can’ t say what she would have testified to. But I know she would ha ve told him y eah, I didn’t have nothing to do
w i t h w h a tw a s g o i n g o n

. ” W h e n a s k e d t h i s q u e s t i o n a g a i n , t h e A p p e l l a n t r e s p o n d e d , “ I c a n ’ ts a y. I don’t know. I

don’t know what her intention would have been like that day .” With reg ard to the p ro o f o n t h is issue, the post-conviction court c oncluded that “ there [was] no cre dible proof in the
re c or d to su g g e st that any alib i de fe ns e e ve n e xiste d.

. . .” We a g re e . A c c or din g ly , w e fi ndthi s alleg ation of def

icient per formanc e without merit.

II. F ailure to investigate and prepare for tr ial Next, the Appellant asserts that his trial attorney s failed to adequately investigate and pr epar e his case f or trial. Specif

ically , the Appellant a lleg es t hat t rial counse ls’ perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt due to the failure of his first-chair trial counsel to be prese nt at each court date, failure to intervie w a princ ipal witness for the State, f ailure to attend the trials of the A ppellant’s co- defe ndants, and failu re to c on fe r p re -t

ri a l with the Ap pe lla nt in or de r to suf fi c ie ntl y pr e pa

re fo r tr ia l. We fi ndthe se a lle g a tio ns me ri tle ss. First, the Appe llant arg ues that trial counsel “wa s absent at se vera l court appe arances.” At the post-conviction hea

ring , the Appellant’ s first-chair trial counse l testified, in total context, t hat the sec ond-chair counsel “ may have a ppear ed some for

me and I may not ha ve even been there on some report dates. . . . [I ]f there wa s nothing of sig nificanc e t o t ak e p l ace, there wouldn’t be a ny rea son . . . for both of us to be the re.” We know of no rule of proce dure or standard of compe tence which re quires the e ntire def ense te am to b e p rese nt at every schedule d court a

ppear ance of a defe ndant. Moreove r, the Appe llant offer s no sugg estion as t o how t he presence of only one attorne y a t a sc he du le d r e po rt

date ha d a ny be ari ng up on the jury ’s ve rd ic t. Th is a lle g a tio n is wi tho ut m e ri t. The Appe llant also alleg es i neff ectivene ss based upon trial counsels’ failure to interview a State’s key

witness, Christopher J ames. James was jointly indicted for the same c rimes as the Appellant. Six defe ndants, including the Appellant, we re indicte d for the mur der and kidnapping of the victim. A num ber of the co-defe ndants’ cases we re se vere d for tria l. Two of these trials wer e conducte d befor e the Appe llant’s trial was he ld. Prior t o t h e Appe llant’s trial, the co- defe ndant Ja m e s n e g o t i a t e d a

p l e a a g r e e m e n tw i t h t h e S t a t e w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n h i mb e i n g c a l l e d a s a w i t ne ss ag ainst the Appellant. Bo t h o f t he Appe llant’s trial attorney s testified that afte r James neg otiated a plea ag ree ment, he wa s place d in pro t ec t ive custody , which made him virtuallyinacc essible. Nonethele ss, the Appellant’s tria l attorney s obtained the tra nscripts of James’ testimony from the-4-

tw o p ri or tr ia ls, in a dd iti on to o btaini ng his pre- tr ial sta te me nts , a ndsu c c e ssf ull y us e d th e se state me nts to i mpe a c h h im at the Ap pe lla nt’ s tr ia l. Christ op he r Ja me s w a s n ot c a lle d a s a wi tne ss by the Appellant at the post-convic tion hearing . For this reason, we are without any clue a s to what benef icial information the Appe lla n t’ s tr ia l attorney s could have obtained by persona lly

interviewing Jame s, be y on d that inf

orma tio n wh ic h the y ha d a lr e a dy g le a ne d fr om the tr ia l t rans c ri pts

. Acc ord i n gl y , we c onclude the A ppellant has failed to establish either de ficient pe rformance or prejudice

. Next, in a related matter, t he Appellant asserts that trial counsels’ failure to attend the two prior tr ia ls o f h is c o- de fe nd a nts c on sti tut e s de fi c ie nt pe rf orma nc e

. As didthe po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt , we f ind no deficie ncy . Trial counse ls testified that they eac h attended portions of two of the code fe nd a nts ’ t

ri a ls andsp ok e wi th d e fe ns e a tto rn e y s fo r the c o- de fe nd a nts . M or e ov e r, a s p re vio us ly noted, t h eA p p e ll an t’ s tr

ia l a tt o rn e y s o b tained complete tr anscripts of the co-de fendants’ trials, which
wer e used in succ essfully impeaching J ames in t h e Appellant’s trial. This alleg ation is without merit.

Further, the A ppellant asserts that his trial attorney s fa i l ed to m eet with him a suff icient
nu mb e r o f t ime s in or de r t o p re pa re fo r t ri a l. T he te sti mon y

of his tr ia l a tto rn e y s r e fu te d th is alleg ation. Both trial a t t o rn ey s testified that they met with the Appellant as ma ny times as was neede d to p repa

re f or the c ase. Q uestions conce rning the cr edibilityof witnesses, the w eig ht and value g iven to the ir testimony , and the fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e to be r esolved by the trial court. Henley , 960 S.W .2d at 578. The post-conviction court cle arly acc redited the testimony of the trial attorney s, and we will not reweig h or re evaluate the evide nce or substitut e our infe renc es fo r tho se dr a wn by

the tr ia l c ou rt . A g a in, the Ap pe lla nt fa ils to sug g e st h ow ma ny a dd iti on a l vi sit s to the jail h is trial attorney s should have made or what information they could have g ained on the visits. Thi s issue is without m erit.

L a stl y , th e Ap pe lla nt a sse rt s th a t th e c umu la tiv e e ff e c t of the tr ia l a tto rn e y s’ e rr or s w arr a nts a finding of ineff

ective a ssistance. Ha ving c oncluded that the rec ord supports no sing le finding of defic ient perf

o rm an ce , this iss ue is without merit. Wi th reg ard to the ove rall per formanc e of the A p p e l l a n t ’ s tr i a l at t o r n e ys , t h e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n c o u r tc o n c l u d e d t h a tt h e y:

“ we re re ma

rk ably we ll- pr e pa

re d fo r tr ia l a nd did a n ou tst a nd ing job o f cr os sexamining the State’s witnesse s. They had bene fi t of the prior

testimonyof the State’s prim ary

witness and we re a

ble to impeach his testimony thoroug hly . They had met with their c lient, investigated the ca se, re ad the transcripts o f t h e trials of codef endants that ha d previously been he ld, attended a

seminar in pre paration for issues relating to capital ca ses, and in eve ry other reg ard wer e complete ly prepa red to handle this case .”

Moreove r, we are constraine d to note that althoug h the Appellant was facing the death penalty , and, i n f a c t , o n e o f t h e c o

- d e f

e n d a n t s r e c e i v e d a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h , t h e A p p e l l a n ti s n o w s e r v i n g a t w e n t yfive-y ear sentenc e for

his role in the execution-sty le murder , as a r esult of the advoca cy of his trial-5-

attorney s. I n sum, we ag ree with the post-convi ct i on court’s f inding that the A ppellant’s trial
a tto rn e y s w e re no t de fi c ie nt i n th e ir re pr e se ntatio n o f the Ap pe lla nt.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e af firm the Shelby

CountyCriminal Court’s dismissal of the Appellant’s pe tition for post-conviction relief

.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE