### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Se pte m be r 14, 200 4 S es sio n

KEITH DA LE THOM AS v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty

No. C02-336 R oger A . P age, Judge

No

. W 2 0 0 4 -0 0 0 8 0 -C CA -R 3 -PC

The pe titioner, Keith Dale Thomas, was c onvicted by a jury in the Madison CountyCircuit Court of first deg ree murder a nd possession of a de adly wea pon with intent to employ it in the commissi on of an of fense . He r ece ived a total ef fec tive sentenc e of life plus two y ear s incarc eration in the Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n. Sub se qu e ntl y , th e pe tit ion e r f ile d a pe tit ion fo r p os tc on vic tio n r e lie f, a lle g ing that hi s tria l c ou ns e l a nd his app e llate c ou ns e l w e re ine ff e c tiv e . T he po stconviction court denied the petition, a nd the petitioner now appea ls. Upon our re view of the rec ord

a ndthe pa

rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt

.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.

Joe H . B yrd , Jr. , Jac ks on , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Ke ith Da le Th oma s.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Da vid H. F ind le y , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J ames G. Woodall, District Attorney Gene ral; and A lfred L . Earls, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

At trial, the State adduc ed proof that o n J u n e 10, 1996, the petitioner a nd the victim were marrie d. See S tate v. Ke ith Dale Thomas, No. W1999-01938-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 124525, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Fe b. 6, 2001). Be tween 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on J une 10, 1996, the petitioner ca lled the victim’s sister and a sked her to chec k on the v ictim. I d. The victim’s sister called the victim’s house. I d. The five-y ear -old son of the petitioner a nd the victim answer ed the telephone. I d. The victim ’s s ister asked to speak with the vi ctim, and the child replied that she was on the floor, dead. I d. The victim’s sister drove her boy friend and her mother to the victim’s house.T h is su rn a m e is sp e lled b o th “F o u se ” a n d “F o u s” in the re c o rd

. 1

-2- I d. They found the preg nant victim still br eathing

. I d. An ambulance and police wer e called to the

scene . I d. The pe titioner arrived shortly there afte r, driving a burg undy Dodg e Dynasty . I d.

The victim was taken to the hos pital. I d. at *2. P olice surve y ed the pr emises and “ found a shotgun in plain view in the crawl space underneath the rear of the hous e.” I d. An officer r eca lled that a bu rgund y Dod ge Dyna sty ha d b e e n p ark e d ju st d ow n th e str e e t f ro m th e sc e ne of

the c ri me
ear lier that day ; how ever , when he returne d to the location wher e the Dynasty was pa rked, the re w as a white Ply mouth Neon in its place. I d. Police sear ched the petitioner’s Dynasty and discove red a shotgun shell matching those used in the murder wea pon. I d. Police noticed that t h e p et i t i o n er ’s house wa s in disarray , and ther e wa s a fa milyphotograph “ with an X over the victim’s fac e and a dot on the [petit ioner’s] head.” I d.

Police discover ed t h at t he victim had bee n driving a white Ply mouth Neon she ha d rente d from Enter

prise Rent-a -Car. I d. at *3. Ther e wa s an additional key for the N eon in the petitioner’ s vehicle.

One of the victim’s c o-worke rs testified that on J une 10, 1996, she a nd the victim finished working at Sear s at approximately 6:00 p.m. I d. They left work and picked up their children f

rom d a y c ar e

. I d

. T h e v i c t i ml e f tt h e c o

- w o rk e r ’ s h o u s e a t6 : 2 0 p

. m

. , s a y i n g s h e w a s g o i n g h o m e to prepa re dinner. I d. At 6:29 p.m., the petitioner ca lled the co- worke r, inquiring about the victim’s wher eabouts. I d.

Th e pe tit ion e r’ s g ir lf

ri e nd , A nit a F ou se , te sti fi e d that sh e a nd the pe tit ion e r h a d a n in tim a te 1 relationship. Fouse re called that the petitioner beg an the r elationship by telling F ouse that he w as divorce d. I d. at *5. Fouse asserted t hat s he did not see the petitioner af ter 1:15 p.m. on the day

of the murder . I d. Specifica lly , Fouse denied that she had been to Cato’s with the petitioner on the day of the mur de r. I d. She e xpla ine d that sh e ha d be e n in Ca to’ s w ith the pe tit ion e r t wo we e ks pr ior to the murder. I d. at *7. After the victim’s de ath, the petitioner c ontinued to deny to Fouse tha t he and the victim were marrie d at the time of the vic tim’s death. I d. at *5.

Kevin Washington, a Chester County J ail inmate, testified that he had previo u s l yb een convicted of

forg ery and thef t of property

valued ove r $10,000. I d. at *6. Additionally , Washington admitted that he was fac ing thirty -one counts of forg ery in Madison County . Washington asse rted that prior to the murde r, the pe titioner g ave him a book of chec ks in ex chang e for

clothes and two shotguns. I d. After the murder, Washington and the petitioner wer e incar cer ated toge ther. I d. The petitioner told Washington that he “‘ committed the perf ect c rime and g ot away

with it.’” I d. Then, the pe tit ion e r d e sc ri be d h ow he kil le d th e vic tim . I d. Ad dit ion a lly , th e pe tit ion e r d isc los e d to Was hin g ton that he wa s try ing to o bta in a c he c k th a t F ou se wr ote on the da y of the mur de r t o h e lp prove a possible alibi for himself. I d.T h e o the r m u rd e rs w e re c o m m itt e d b y p e rs o n s o the r th a n the p e tit io n e r. 2

-3- Ba rbar a Perry , an employ ee of Cato’s depa

rtment store, re called that the petitioner, F ouse, and a sma ll boy

had bee n in the store on a Monday shortly befor e the store closed a t 7:00 p.m. I d. Howeve r, Perry

could not reme mber the e x act date that she ha d seen the petitioner.

Ba sed upon the fore g oing, the petitioner was convicted of preme ditated first deg ree murder and possession of a

deadly wea pon with intent to employit in the commissi on of a n o ff en s e. He

rec eived a

sentenc e of life with the possibili ty of par ole for his murde r convic tion a nd a sente nce of two y ear s for his possession of a w eapon of fense

. The trial court ordere d the sentenc es to be ser ved

consec utively

. Subsequently , the petitioner, filed a pro se pe titi o nf

o r p o st-conviction re lief, alleg ing, a mong other g rounds, the ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. Counsel w as appointed to a ssist t he petitioner, and an a mended pe tition was filed. There in, the petitioner alleg ed that his tri al counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e i n f

a i l i n g t o t h o r o u g h l y q u e s t i o n W a s h i n g t o n r e g ar d i n g h i s e x t e n s i v e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, failing to interview the petitioner’s son reg arding the victim’s mur der, failing to obtain a copy of a

c he c k w ri tte n b y

F ou se to Ca to’ s o n th e da y of the mur de r, faili ng to o btain d a y c are re c or ds to fu rthe r p inp oin t th e vic tim ’s tim e of de a th, a nd faili ng to fi le pr e tr ia l motio ns

. Th e pe tit ion e r a lso

co n t en d ed that appellate counse l was ineff ective in r aising only

the issue of the suf

ficienc y of the evidenc e on dire ct appe al.
At the post-conviction hearing, the assistant district attorney who prosec uted the petitioner testified that Washington c on t acted the District Attorney Gene ral’s of

fice , offe ring information

r e l a t i n g t o t h e v i c t i m ’ s m u r d e r , a s w e l l a s o t h e r m u r d e r s

. W a s h i n g t o n w a s a w a i t i n g tr i a l o n t h i r t y- 2 one fe lony

forg ery char g es re lating to ba d chec ks and was attempting to c urry favor by assisting the State. The prosecutor asserted that Washington was promised not hing in ex chang e for his testimony

a g a ins t th e pe tit ion e r; ho we ve r, c oo pe ratio n w a s g e n e ra lly a fa c tor c on sid e re d w he n n e g oti a tin g wi th

an ac cused.
The prose cutor testified tha t he had f iled a notice of enhanc ed punishment in W ashing ton’s fo rg e ry c a se s listi ng Was hin g ton ’s c on vic tio ns in Ca lif ornia a nd Ar

ka ns a s. On the no tic e , th e Sta te inc lud e d th e ft

a ndfo rg e ry

c on vic tio ns in A rk a ns a s. Ad dit ion a lly , th e no tic e inc lu de d Ca lif or nia convictions of burg lary , rec eiving stolen property , bad chec ks and g rand theft. At the pe titioner’s trial, Wa s h in g to n te s ti f

ie d th a t h e h a d n o t b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a n y o f f e n s e s in Ca li f

o r n ia . The prosec utor testified at the post-c onviction hearing that he did not know if Washington wa s ly ing beca use the information r eg arding the California convictions was obtaine d from an N CI C report a nd

certified copies of

the convictions we re not obtaine d.

Th e pr os e c uto r t e sti fi e d th a t du ri ng the pe tit ion e r’ s t ri a l, h e didno t a sk Was hin g ton to identify the murder

wea pon as being one of the shotguns that Washing ton had sold the petitioner. I n fac t , t h e p ro s ecutor

asserted that bec ause the jury hear d of Washington’ s ext ensive c riminal history of crimes of dishonesty , he attempted to “ distance” his p ro s ec u t ion from Washington’s-4-

testimonydue to Washing ton’s damag ed cre dibilit y

. The prosec utor specific ally stated, “I arg ued that the ca se wa s proved be y ond a re asonab l e d o ubt, even if the jury wer e to totally

disreg ard the testimonyof Mr. Washing ton.” The pr osecutor e x plained that he ca lled Washington to testify primarily to elicit information that the petitioner re v ea l ed to W ashing ton during their shar ed incar cer ation. The prose cutor stated th at s uch information could only have be en re veale d by

the perpe trator of

the crime.

After the petitioner wa s conv i ct ed
, the prosec utor rec eived a letter purportedly

written by Washington, re canting his testimony beca use the State had failed to honor their promises. Af

ter the

rec antation, the prosecutor rece ived a second letter f rom Washington, asse rting that the re cantation had bee n written by

an inmate na med Tommy Warren. Washing ton a dmitted that he signe d the letter but claimed that he did not re ad it. Washington denie d that he lied at the pe titioner’s trial.

Th e pr os e c uto r a lso te sti fi e d th a t th e Di stric t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l’ s o ff

ic e ha d a n o pe n- fi le policy reg arding discovery

. The pe titioner’s t ri al co unsel testified at the e videntiary hearing that he met with the petitioner numerous times in prepa ration for trial. He a nd the petitioner ha d “a g ood communication relationship.” Trial counsel hire d an investi g ator to rese arc h Washington’s criminal history
, and he informed t h e p et i t i o n er of the finding s. Trial counse l maintained that he wa s not suprised by any evidenc e the State pr oduced at trial, noting that he obtained all of the nece ssary materia ls from the State via open- file discovery . There fore , he saw n o n ee d t o file pre trial motions. Trial counsel acknow ledg ed that Washing ton denied any California c onvictions, and trial counse l did not

c ha lle ng e thi s a sse rt ion a t the pe tit ion e r’ s tria l. T ri a l c ou ns e l op ine d th a t Wa sh ing ton ’s c re dib ili ty

was alre ady sever ely damag ed and there was no need to pur sue the issue further

. Trial co u n s el stated, “I don’t know how a

liar, once y ou can show that he’s a liar – He’ s a liar. I mean, how ma ny times do y ou have to show it? ”

Trial counse l denied eve r hearing that the petitioner’s son ha d stated that someone othe r than the petitioner c ommitt ed the murde r. Trial counse l admitted that he neve r interview ed the c hild, but he asse rted that re latives informed him that the c hild would not talk about the incident.

Trial counse l could not rec all any one testify ing a s to the victim’s precise time of dea th. Neve rtheless, a t trial, trial counsel a ttempted to provide an alibi defe nse for the petit ioner. How ever , the petitioner’s a libi witness, Fouse
, denied be ing w ith the petitioner at the time of the mur der. Trial

c ou ns e l de nie d that the pe tit ion e r e ve r a sk e d him to ob ta in a c he c k p ur po rt e dly writt e n b y

F ou se to Cato’s on the day

of t he murder. Additionally , trial counsel de nied that the petitioner e ver r equeste d that counsel obtain re cords f rom the day car e center to verify the t ime that the vi ctim picked up her children on the day

of her death.

Th e pe tit ion e r t e sti fi e d th a t he a sk e d tria l c ou ns e l to ob ta in the c he c k F ou se pur po rt e dly wrote to Cato’s on the day of t he murder and the day car e records showing the time the victim picked up he r ch ild re n on the da y of the mur de r. Th e pe tit ion e r ad mit te d tha t if the c he c k exist e d, it w ou ldA p p e llate c o u n se l d id no t t e stif y a t t h e p o st-co n v ic tio n he a rin g

. 3

-5- on ly c on c lus ive ly pr ov e that F ou se wa s in Ca to’ s o n th e da y of the mur de r; the c he c k a lon e wo uld not provide the pe titioner an alibi. The pe titioner claimed that he an d p ost-conviction counse l attem p te d to o b ta in th e c h e c k
, b u t th e e le c tr o n ic r e c o r d s h a d b e e n d e s tr o y e d

. A d d it io n a ll y , the pe tit ion e r c la ime d that he be lie ve d the da y c are fa c ili ty ke pt the ir re c or ds on c omp ute r fo r at le a st a y ear . Further, the pe titioner complained that he asked c ounsel to have his cl o t h es t est ed for g unpowder , blood, or tissue.

Th e pe tit ion e r sta te d tha t he did no t kn ow Was hin g ton prior to b e ing inc arc e rate d w ith him
, and he f urther de nied that he boug ht shotguns fr om Washington. The pe titioner maintained that trial counsel c ould have more thoroug hly investigated Washington’ s history and the substanc e of Washington’s stateme nt to police.
The pe titioner complained that he never met his appellate c ounsel; he mere ly communicated with appellate c ounsel throug h corr espondenc e. Appellat ec ounsel neve r aske d the petitioner whic h 3 issues the petitioner would like to r aise on direc t a ppeal. Reg ardle ss, the petitioner testified that he wrote to a ppellate c ounsel, informing him of the issues he wished to raise on direc t appea l.

T h o m a s R

. W arr e n , J r

. , t e s t i f i e d a t t h e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n h e ar i n g t h a t h e w a s s e r v i n g a n i n e t ynine-y ear sentenc e for

rape and had been incarc erated for almost thirty y ear s. Warren w as housed in the Nashville Corre ctional Fa cility and did “leg al work” within the jail. Accor ding to Warr en, W a s h i n g t o n c a m e t o W arr e n ’ s c e l l s e e k i n g l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e

. W a s h i n g t o n i n q u i r e d a s to p os sib le

me tho ds to c omp e l the Sta te to ho no r a n a g re e me nt the y ma de to g ive Was hin g ton favo rable treatment in ex chang e for manufa cture d testimonyag ainst various parties, including the petitioner. Warren wrote letters to the petitioner and the District Attorney Gene ral’s office
, indicat i n g t hat Was hin g ton wa nte d to re c a nt h is t e sti mon y du e to the Sta te ’s no nc omp lia nc e wi th the ir a g re e me nt. Warren de nied re ceiving any benef it in ex chang e for

writing the l et t er s fo r petitioner. Warr en maintaine d th a t Wa s h in g to n “ k n e w a ll a lo n g th a t it w a s [Wa rr e n ’ s ] in te n t to try to u n do the messiness that he [W ashing ton] had made in testify ing a g ainst these people .”

At the conclusion of the post-c onviction hearing, the post-conviction court entere d an orde r deny ing the petition for post-conviction re lief. The c ourt found that the pe titioner had fa iled to meet his burden of establishing by clea r and convincing evidenc e that he rece ived i neff ective a ssistance fr om h is c ou ns e l. T he pe tit ion e r n ow app e a ls.

II. Ana lys is

To be succ essful in his claim for post-c onviction relief, the petitioner m ust prove a ll factua l alleg ations contained in his post-conviction petition by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. See T enn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 110(f) (2003). “‘Clea r and convincing evidenc e means evidenc e in which ther e is no serious or substantial doubt about the cor re ctness of the conclusions draw n from the

e vid e nc e .’ ” Sta te v. Ho lde r, 15 S.W. 3d90 5, 91 1 (T e nn . Crim . App . 199 9) (q uo tin g Ho dg e s v . S. C.-6-

To of & Co. , 833 S.W. 2d 89 6, 90 1 n.2 (T e nn . 199 2) ). I ssu e s re g ard ing the c re dib ili ty of wi tne sse s, the weig ht and value to be ac corde d their testimony , and the f actua l questions raised by the evidenc e adduce d at trial ar e t o b e resolved by the post-conviction court as the trier of fa ct. See He nley

v. S t at e, 9 6 0 S

. W

. 2 d 5 7 2
, 5 7 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ). T h er ef o re , we af fo rd th e p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n co u rt ’s fi n d i n gs of fact t he weight of a jury verdic t, with such findings being conclusive on appea l absent a showing that the evidenc e in the re cord pr eponder ates a g ainst those finding s. I d. at 578.

A cl a im of ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of c ou ns e l is a mixe d que sti on of la w a ndfa c t. S e e Sta te v. Burns, 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999) . We will review the post-c onviction court’s finding s of fac t de novo with a pre sumption t hat those finding s are corr ect. See Fields v. State, 40 S .W.3d 450, 45 8 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) . H ow e ve r, we wi ll r e vie w the po st- c on vic tio n co urt’ s c on c lus ion s o f l a w p ur e ly de novo. I d.

“To e sta b lish ineffec tive assistance of counse l, the petitioner bea rs the burde n of proving both that counsel’s performa nce was deficient and that the deficie ncy prejudice d the def

ense.” Goad v. State, 938 S.W .2d 363, 3 6 9 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct . 2052, 2064 (1984))

. I n evaluating whether the petitioner has met this burden, this court must determine whe ther c o u n s el ’s per formanc e wa s within the rang e of c ompetence require d of attorney s in criminal case s. See B axter v. Rose, 523 S.W .2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975) . Moreove r,

[b] eca use a pe titioner must e stablish both prong s of the test, a fa ilure to p ro ve e ith e r d e fi c ie nc y or pr e jud ic e pr ov ide s a

su ff ic ie nt b a sis to deny relief on the ineff

ective a ssistance c laim. I ndeed, a court ne ed

no t a dd re ss the c omp on e nts in a ny pa rt ic ula r or de r or even addre ss both if the [petiti oner] makes an i nsufficie nt showing of one
c omp on e nt.
Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069).

As we no te d e a

rl ie r, the pe tit ion e r al le g e s th a t hi s tria l c ou ns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e in f a ili ng to th o r o u g h ly

q u e s ti o n Wa s h in g to n a s to h is e xte n s iv e c r im in a l h is to r y , f a il in g to in te r v ie w the pe tit ion e r’ s so n r e g ard ing the vic tim ’s mur de r, faili ng to o btain a c op y of a c he c k w ri tte n b y F ou se to Cato’s on the day

of the murde r, fa iling to obtain day car e re cords to further pinpoint the victim’s time of dea th, and fa iling to f ile pretrial motions. The petitioner also contends that appellate counsel was inef fec tive in raising only

the issue of the sufficienc y of t he evide nce supporting his convic tion on direc t appea l.

F ir st, we no te that Wash ing ton ’s e xten siv e c ri min a l hi sto ry inv olv ing c ri me s o f d ish on e sty

was c lear ly befor e the jury . Moreove r, both the prose cutor a nd trial counsel noted that Washington’s

cre dibilit y

with the jury was nil. Acc ording ly
, the petitioner has failed to de monstrate how f ailing to further question Washington re g arding his criminal past was pr ejudicial.-7-

The pe titioner also complains reg arding trial counsel’ s failure to interview his son about the

m u r d e r

. H o w e v e r , t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s s o n d i d n o tt e s t i f y a tt h e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n h e ar i n g

. G e n e r a l l y,

“ [w]he n a pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t tr ia l c ou ns e l faile d to dis c ov e r, int e rv ie w, or pr e se nt w itn e sse s in support of his de fense
, these witnesses should be prese nted by the petitioner at t h e e videntiary hearing.” Bla ck v. State, 794 S.W .2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) . We may not speculate on what bene fit this witness mig ht ha ve offe red to the petitioner’s case , nor may we g uess as to wha t

e vid e nc e fu rthe r i nv e sti g a tio n may ha ve un cov e re d. I d. Ac c or din g ly , th e pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to demonstrate pr ejudice in this reg ard.
As to the petitioner’s complaints reg arding trial counsel’s failure to obtain Fouse’ s chec k and the da y c are re c or ds , th e pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to pr ov e that su c h r e c or ds ex is ted or that th e y wo uld have be en bene ficial to his case . There fore
, the petitioner ha s ag ain fa iled to establish prejudice

.

Further, the pe titioner bemoans trial counsel’s failure to file pretrial motions. Howeve r, the pe tit ion e r c on c e de s th a t he wa s n ot p re jud ic e d b y cou ns e l’ s f

a ilu re to f ile pr e -t ri a l mo tio ns . T his issue is without m erit.
Finally , the petitioner a

rg ues that his appellate counsel should have met with him and r aised additional issues on direct a ppeal. How ever , this court has pre viouslyobserve d,
“[F]ailure to prese rve and/or assert a ll arg uable issues on a ppeal is not per se ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel, since the failure to do so may be a pa rt of the co unsel’s strate g y of def ense. Counsel is not constitutionallyrequire d to arg ue eve ry issue on appe al
, or pre sent iss ue s c ho se n b y

his c lie nt. Th e de te rm in ati on of wh ic h is su e s to prese nt on appea l is a matter of c ounsel’s discre tion.”

State v. Matson, 729 S .W.2d 281, 282 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986) (quoting State v. Swanson, 680 S.W. 2d48 7, 49 1 (T e nn . Crim . App . 198 4) ). Mo re ov e r, “ [a]p pe llate c ou ns e l are no t c on sti tut ion a lly require d to raise e very

conce ivable issue on appe al.” Car penter v. State, 126 S.W .3d 879, 887 (Tenn. 2004) . The petiti oner has failed to prove what prejudicehe suff ere d as a r esult of any

alleg ed defic iency

of appe llate counse l.

III. Conclusi on
Finding no err or, we aff

irm the judg ment of the post-c onviction court.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE