### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 17, 200 5
DON ALD RA Y E AD Y, JR. v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Bradley County No. M- 03-220 Car roll L. Ross, Jud ge

No. E2004-02396-CC A-R3- P C - July 29, 2005

The pe titioner was convicted of second deg ree murder in J uly of 1998. He a ppeale d his conviction to this C ourt, and we aff

irmed his conviction. State v. Donald R. Ea dy , J r., E2000-01152- CCA-R3- CD, 2001 WL

1543472 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvil le, Dec . 4, 2001), perm. app. denied, ( Tenn. May 6, 2002). The pe titioner then filed a pe tition for post-conviction re lief. The post-c onviction court de nied his petition. He appe als to this C ourt s o l el y on the issue of inef fec tive assistance of c ou ns e l. We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l 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 Tr ial Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.
J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the c ourt, in which D AVI D G. H A Y ES and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined. Richard Elliston, Cleveland, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Donald Ray

Eady , J r.. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Seth P. Kestner, Assi stant Attorney Gene ral; Jerry N. Est es, Dist rict Attorney Gene ral; Shari Tay loe-Young , Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
Fa ctual B ackg round
Th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt ’s re c itatio n o f the un de rl y ing fa c ts i s a s f oll ow s: During the late evening hours of October 25, 1997, Trac ey Gre en and Curtis Cronk we re re t u rn i n g fr o ma b ar i n P o l k C o u n t y t o t h ei r h o m es i n Br ad l eyC o u n t y
. T h o u gh Cronk was a

marrie d man, he a nd Gre en we re se eing eac h other and had g one to the bar w ith another mutual friend.-2- They stopped on the side of a road in B radle y County to discuss the future of their re lationship. A car driven by one Michae l Shelton and in which the [petitioner] was a passeng er pa ssed them, stopped, and the n backe d up, alleg edly to see if they neede d any

assistance

. Whil e S helton was backing up, he backed into the vehic le containing Gre en and Cronk. An a

rg ument ensued, during w hich heated wo rd s we re ex chang ed by bot h s i d es . [P etitioner] pulled a handg un from his bac k pocket a nd shot Cronk. Cronk died shortly

there after as a re sult of the wounds, and the [petitioner] was char g ed with homicide.

The pe titioner was indicted f or one ( 1) count of se cond deg ree murder in November of 1997. He wa s tried in J uly

of 1998 by

a jury and wa s convicted of

the indicted off

ense. The t ri al court sentenced t h e p etitioner to twenty -five ( 25) y ear s as a Rang e I standard of

fende r. The pe titioner appea led his conviction t o t h i s C ourt on a number of g rounds. We aff

irmed his conviction in an opinion filed Dec ember

4, 2001, and the Te nnessee S u p re m e C ourt denied the petitioner’s application for

permission to appea l on May 6, 2002. State v. Donald R. Eady , J r., E2000-01152- CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1543472 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Dec . 4, 2001), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. May

6, 2002).
Th e pe tit ion e r the n f

ile d a pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n re lie f on F e br ua ry 24 , 20 03

. Th e po stconviction court held a hearing on this pe tition on May 21, 2004. The post-c onviction court denie d the petition on J uly

16, 2004. The pe titioner filed a notice of appe al on Aug ust 13, 2004.

AN AL YSI S The pe titioner’s sole issue on appea l is whether the post-conviction court erre d in deny ing his petition for post-conviction relief based on the ineffe ctive assistance of counse l. The petitioner arg ues that his trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive bec ause he did not subpoena 911 emerg ency tapes of the incident leading to his arre st and conviction for second de g ree murder. The p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n c o u r t’ s f in d in g s o f

f a c t a r e c o n c lu s iv e o n ap p e a l u n le s s th e e v id e nce preponde rate s otherwise. See State v. Burns, 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999) . During our re view of the issue raised, we w ill af ford those finding s of fac t the weig ht of a jury verdic t, and this Court is b ou ndby

the c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s u nle ss the e vid e nc e in the re c or d p repo nd erat e s a g a ins t th os e finding s. See He nley

v. State, 960 S.W .2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997) ; Alley v. State, 958 S.W .2d 138, 147 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) . This Court may not rewe i gh or re -eva luate the e vidence , nor substitut e its infere nces f

or those dr awn by

the post-conviction court. See State v. Honey cutt, 54 S.W .3d 762, 766 (Tenn. 2001) . Howeve r, the post -convic tion court’s conc lusions of law are revie wed unde r a pur ely

de novo standa

rd with no presumption of correc tness. See Fields v. State, 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001)

.-3-

When a petitioner see ks post-conviction relief on the basis of i n ef

fec tive assistance of counsel, the pe titioner bears the burden of showing that (a) the servic es re ndere d by trial counsel wer e def ic ie n t a n d ( b ) th a t th e d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o r man c e w a s p r e

ju d ic ia l. Se e Po w e r s v
. St a te , 942 S. W. 2 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 8 ( T e n n
. Crim

. A p p
. 1 9 9 6 )

. I n o r d e r to d e mo n s tr a te d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o r mance, the petitioner must show that the servic es rendere d or the a dvice g iven was be low “the r ang e of competenc e dema nded of attorney s in criminal case s.” Ba x ter v. Ros e, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 19 75 ). I n o rd e r t o d e mon str ate prejudic e , th e pe tit ion e r mus t sh ow that th e re is a re a so na ble probability

that, but for counse l’s defic ient perf ormanc e, the r es u l t o f the proc eeding would have been dif fer ent. See Strickland v. Washing ton, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1984). “B eca

use a pe titioner must establish both prongs of the test to prevail on a c laim of ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel, failure to prove e ither def icient per formanc e or r esulting pr ejudice provides a suf

ficient ba sis to deny

relief on the claim.” H enley , 960 S.W .2d at 580.
As no te d a

bo ve , th is C ourt will a ff or d th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt ’s fa c tua l f ind ing s a pre s u m ption of corr ectne ss, rende ring them conclusive on a ppeal unless the r ecor d preponde rate s ag ainst the court’s findings. S ee id. at 578. Howeve r, our supre me court has “de termined that issues of def icient per formanc e by

counsel a nd possible prejudice to the defe nse ar e mix ed questions of law and fa ct . .

. ; t h u s , [ appellate ] review of [these issues] is de novo” with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 461.
F urthe rm or e , o n c la ims of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of c ou ns e l, the pe tit ion e r i s n ot e nti tle d to th e ben efit of

hin ds ig ht. Se e Ad kin s, 91 1 S. W.2 d at 34 7. Th is C ou rt ma y no t se c on d- g ue ss a re a s o n ab l y
- b a s e d tr i a l s tr a t e g y , a n d w e c a n n o tg r a n tr e l i e f b a s e d o n a

s o u n d , b u tu n s u c c e s sf

ul, tactica l decision made during the course of the proc eeding s. See id. Howe ver, such defe renc e to the tactica l decisions of counsel applies only if counsel make s those decisions af ter a dequate prepa

ration for the c ase. See Cooper v. State, 847 S.W.2d 521, 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
The petitioner arg ues on appea l that his trial c ounsel’s fa ilure to subpoena the 911 emer g ency tape wa s i n d ee d i n ef

fe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. He a rg ues that the 911 tape would have de mon str a te d th a t T ra c e y

Gr e e n w a s sq uatti ng be sid e the vic tim a t th e tim e of

the arriva l of

the g old minivan, whose driver place d the 911 call, instead of running from a near by building. The pe titioner believes that h e s h o uld have be en af forde d the opportunity

to demonstrate a

discrepancy

of such mag nitude.
I n the pos t-conviction court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction re lief, the c ourt ma de the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s:

This p e ti ti o n in th is c a u s e w a s f il e d b y th e p e ti ti o n e r , it

s e e ms , mo r e f

r om boredom than f

rom any g enuine be lief on hi s p ar t t h at a c ause f or Post Convi ction Re lie f re a lly e xiste d. Th e pauc ity of pr oo f pr e se nte d by Pe tit ion e r at th e he ari ng in thi s c a us e faile d to of

fe r e ve n mi nim a l e vid e nc e to s up po rt ma ny of the c la ims in h is petition.-4- Petitioner complains about the fact t hat t he 911 Tape was not subpoenaed by his a tto rn e y
. Whil e his re a so ns fo r this c omp la int we re no t e xac tly

c le ar t o th e c ou rt , Pe tit ion e r s ome ho w thin ks that th e tape wo uldha ve re bu tte d s ome of the state me nts made by Gre en and w ould have shown he r to be a liar.
None of the statements complained of, howe ver, ha d anything to do with the actua l commission of the crime. Of fice r David O’B oy le, the first offic er on the scene a ft e r the c omm iss ion of

the c ri me , te sti fi e d th a t T ra c e y Gr e e n w a s h y ste ri c a l up on his ar r iv a l. [S e e p
. 7 6 o f

tria l t r a n s c r ip t. ] A n y

d is c r e p a n c ie s th a t m a y

h a v e e xiste d be tw e e n th e te sti mon y

of Tr a c e y Gr e e n a ndthe c on te nts of the91 1 ta pe c ou ld e a sil y ha ve be e n e xpla ine d b y

the e xcit e d s ta te of

the wi tne ss.
I t rea ll y d o es n ’t matter if the de fendant and his companion we re still at the scene when t h e 911 call wa s made; what does matter is that they fled the sc ene immediately

afte r the shooting , and proof of that fa ct was c lear ly

in evidence

. The other matters complained o f by Petitioner reg arding the testimony of Trac ey Gre en w er e m at t ers of

proof to be r esolved by the jury . The Petitioner testified at his trial and of fer ed diffe rent testimony from that of T rac ey

Gre en on some of the issues. The jury chose to believe her version of the fac ts, and there was ample evide nce to support their decision.
Whil e the Petit i o n er m akes other vag ue complaints about the te stimonyof other witnesse s, he admits that he can’ t think of any specific questions that counsel sh ou ld h a ve a sk e d th e se wi tne sse s at tria l.
Petitioner has not me t his burden and has failed to show that trial counsel wa s in any way ineffe ctive either

in the way

he tried the case and any

and all alleg ations that trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive ar e without merit and provide no g rounds on which Post C onviction Relief ca n be g rante d.

As state d abo ve , to pr ov e that tr ia l c ou ns e l of fe re d ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi stanc e , the pe tit ion e r mus t prove both that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that the defic ient perf ormanc e wa s prejudicia l. See Powers v. State, 942 S.W .2d 551, 558 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) . Having revie wed the evidenc e pre sented at the post-conviction hea ring , we conclude that the petitioner ha s not proven that tria l c ou ns e l’ s p e rf

orma nc e wa s in e ff

e c tiv e or pr e jud ic ia l.
Trial counse l testified at the hearing. H e stated that he did not remembe r the pe titioner ever asking him to subpoena the 911 tapes, contrary to the petitioner’s c ontention. We found no proof by the petit ioner at the hear

ing to pr ove that his trial counse l was ineff ective. E ven if the pe titioner had proven that his trial counsel was ineffec tive, he is absolutely unable to prove pr ejudice due to the 911 tape not being introduced into evide nce. T he post-convic tion court stated that it was the pe titioner’s-5-

c on te nti on that Ms. Gr e e n’ s posi tio n n e xt to the de fe nd a nt i ns te a d o f r un nin g fr om a

bu ild ing wo uld demonstrate that she was be ing untr uthful. We ag ree with the post-conviction court’s finding that Ms. Gre en’s posit ion at t he time of the 911 c all is irrelevant to the defe ndant’s g uilt or innocence

. The c all was plac ed af

ter the shooting and by

someone who w as not a witness to t he shooting . The discrepancy

in Ms. Gree n’s position at the time of the 911 ca l l i s of de minimis importance a nd wo uldno t ha ve a ff

e c te d the ve rd ic t. T he pe tit ion e r h a s n ot s ho wn that th e re is a re a so na ble probability

that, but for counse l’s defic ien t p er fo rm ance , the re sult of the proce eding would have been dif fer ent. See Strickland v. Washing ton, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). We also note that in the petitioner’s dire ct appe al to this Court, we included the following state me nt i n o ur

re c itatio n o f M s. Gr e e n’ s te sti mon y a t tria l:

Gre en stated that after

the men lef

t, she attempted to g et the victim into her car , but was una ble to do so because she c ould not pick him up. S he then r an to a ne arby b u i l d i n g, h o p i n g t o fi n d a p h o n e, b u ts h e c o u l d n o tfi n d an y o n e a tt h e b u i l d i n g. Gre en stated that she returne d to the victim, a nd when she rea ched him, a c ar dr ove up. She told the driver to ca ll 911 and then attempted to g ive the victim CPR

.

Ea dy , 2 00 1 WL

15 43 47 2 at *3 . T his te sti mon y dir e c tly c or re la te s w ith wh a t th e pe tit ion e r c la ims the 911 tape w ould have shown ha d it been introduce d into evidence

. The pe titioner has not shown that his trial counse l ’s per formanc e wa s both deficient a nd prejudicia l. We find no reason to g rant the pe titioner’s petition for post-convic tion relief.

CO NC LU SION
F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE