# FILED November 23, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE

AT JACKSON OCTOBER 1998 SESSION
JAMES CHARLES HUNT, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9805-CC-00150 Appel ant , ) ) CROCKETT COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. DICK JERMAN, JR., STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appel ee. ) (P o st -C o n vic tio n ) FOR THE AP PELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: MICHAEL V. THOMPSON JOHN KNOX WALKUP 2505 Hil l sbor

o Rd., Suit e 201 Att orney General & R eport er Nashvi l l e, TN 37212 PETER M. COUGHLAN Asst . Att orney General John Sevi er Bl dg. 425 Fif t h Ave., Nort h Nashvi l l e, TN 37243-0493 CLAYBURN L. PEEPLES Dist ri ct Att orney General EDWARD L. HARDI STER Asst . Dist ri ct Att orney General 110 Col ege St. ,Suit e 200 Trent on, TN 38382 OP I NION F I LED:____________________
AFFIRMED JOHN H. PEAY, Judge2 

### O P I N I O N
The peti ti oner was charged i n the

i ndi ct m ent wit h fi rs t -degr ee m urder ,f el ony murder, especi al ly aggr

avat ed robber y, an d e sp ec ially a gg rav ate d b urg lary . O n F eb rua ry 4 , 19 91 , he ple d g uilty to first-de gre e m urder and especi al ly

aggrav at ed robber y and received l if e plus a con

current t we nty-f ive year sentence as a

Range I st andard off

ender. On F ebruar y 2, 1994, t he pet i t i oner f i l ed hi s pet i ti on for

post -c onvi ct i on rel i ef .

The peti t i on was i ni t i al ly di smiss ed for f ai l ure t o pros ecut e, but upon m ot i on, t he peti ti on was rei nst

at ed and an am

ended peti t i on was fi l ed. In t he am ended peti ti on,

and l at er att he heari ng, t he peti t i oner argued hi s def

ense at t orney ,M ark Fowler ,was in e ffe ct ive by al l owing hi m

t o waive hi s r i ght t o a prel i m i nary heari ng and fai l i ng to pursue a moti on t o suppr ess a conf essi on when t he peti ti oner i nsi st

ed he was coerc

ed, beaten, and depri ved of f ood and water

unti l he si gned an i ncr

i m i nat i ng st at em ent . The peti ti oner also

argued Mr. Fowler

f ai l ed to t reatt

hi s pot ent i al death penal t y case s eri ousl y, as evi denced by t he smal am ount of tim e (6 .9 h o u rs) h e sp e n t w ith h im d u rin g h is re p re se n ta tion a n d h is fa ilure to im m e d iate ly re q u e st c o -co u n se l. T h e p e tit i one r suggest ed that due to ot her pendi ng cases and per sonal concer ns, M

r. Fowler di d not hav e adequate t i m

e to ef f ect ivel y handl e th is se rio u s c a se . T h e tria l c o u rt d isc re d ite d th e p e titio n e r’s p o sit io n , fo u n d th a t M r. F o w le r’s represent at i on was not def i ci ent ,and deni ed the pet i ti on for

rel i ef . I n r evi e w i ng t he pet i t i oner ’ s Si x t h A m end m ent

cl a i m of

i nef f ect i v e assi s t a n c e of couns e l, th i s C our t m ust det e r m i ne w het her t he advi ce given or

ser v i ces r ender e d by M r. Fow l e r w e r e w i t h i n t he r ange of com pet ence dem anded of

at t o r neys i n c ri m i n a l case s . B a x t e r v . R o s e , 523 S. W . 2d 930, 936 ( Tenn. 1975) . The pet

i t i oner “ m ust show t hat couns e l ’ s r epr esent a t i on f e l l bel o w an obj ect

i ve st andar d of r easonabl eness ” and t hat t h i s per f o r m ance pr

e j u d i ced t

he def ense, t hat i s , t her e m ust be a r easonabl e p r obabi l ity t

hat but f o r couns e l ’ s er r o r t he r esul t of t he pr oceedi ng w

oul d have be

e n d i f f e r ent . S t ri c kl and v. W ashi ngt

o n , 466 U . S . 668, 687- 88, 692, 694 ( 1984) ; B e s t v . S t a t e , 708 S . W . 2d 421, 422 (

Tenn. C ri m . A pp. 1985) . To sat i s f y t h e r equi r e m ent of pr e j udi ce,3

h e mu s t dem onst

r a t e a r easonabl e pr

obabi l i t y t hat , but f o r couns e l ’ s er r o r s , he w oul d not have pl ed gui l t

y and w oul d have i nsi s t

ed on goi ng t

o t ri a l . S e e H i l l v. Lock

har t , 474 U. S . 52, 59 ( 1985) ; B anks

t on v. S t a t e , 815 S. W . 2d 213, 215 ( Tenn. C ri m . A pp. 1991) . Here, e ve n a ss u m ing th a t th e e vid e n ce p re p o n d e ra te s a g a ins t th e tria l co u rt’s f i ndi ng th a t M r. F o w le r’s repr esent at i on f el l bel ow the r ange of c om pet ence de m anded of at t orn eys i n cr i m i nal cases, t he peti t i oner has f ai l ed to s how prej udi ce. M ost of t he peti ti oner’ s br

i ef i s dedi cat ed to emphasi zi ng how li t

t l e ti m e hi s at t orney spent on hi s case. In t he m

eant i m e, however, t he peti ti oner f ai l s t

o show, f or i nst

ance, t hat but f or hi s counsel ’ s per

f ormance,hi s i ncul pat

ory st at em ent t o author i ti es would have been suppr

essed, or t hat

he would have pr oceeded t o t ri al ,or t hat t he outc om e of t he proc eedi ngs would hav

e been d iffe re n t. In f act ,because t h

e rec ord i s devoi d o

f any evidence sug

gesti ng that the State wou

ld have be en un able to prove aggrav at i ng f act ors warr ant i ng the deat h penalt

y, it appears l i kel y t o us t hat had the peti ti oner procee

ded to tri al he m

ight not have rec eived as f avor abl e a sent ence as he di d by pl eadi ng gui l t

y. In s hort ,wit hout

any showi ng of pr ej udi ce, t

he peti ti oner’ s cl ai m

s m ust f ai l . The tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of pos t -c onvi ct i on rel i ef

i s af f i rmed.

_______________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge CONCUR:

______________________________ DAV I D G . HAY ES, Judge

______________________________ L. T. LAFFERT

Y, Seni or J udge