### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 5, 200 8

MY RN A JILL JOHNS ON HAL LE v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal from t he Circuit Court for Tipton Coun ty No. 4828 Joseph H. Wal ker, III, Judge

No. W2007-01897-C CA-R 3-PC

A T ipt on County jur y c on vic te d Pe tit ion e r, My

rn a Jill John so n Ha lle , o f r e c kle ss a g g ra vate d a ssa ult

. Th e c on vic tio n ste mme d fr om an a lte rc a tio n be tw e e n Pe tit ion e r a nd he r l ive -i n b oy fr ie nd , D e nn is Vanc e Gulley , during which P etitioner shot the vi ctim in the hea d. Following the trial, the trial c ourt sentenc ed P eti tioner to twelve y ear s in the Tennesse e De partment of Corr ection. Petitioner

su bs e qu e ntl y

fi le d a pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f a lle g ingine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of couns e l. After an evide ntiary

hear ing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. After a thoroug h revie w of the re c or d o n a

pp e a l, w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he po st- c on vic tio n c ourt

.

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 uitCo ur t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J
., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J
., and D A V ID H. W EL L ES , J ., joined.

Trac ey A. B rew er- Walker, Ripley , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, My

rna Jill J ohnson Halle.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; De sh e a Du lany , As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, and Elizabeth R i ce , District Attorney Gene ral a

nd J ames Walter F ree land, J r., Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

Petitioner was convic ted of re ckless ag g ravated a s s a u lt f o ll o w ing a

n alterc ation with her livein boy fri en d at a par

ty on J uly 4, 2003. Sta te v . M

y rn a J ill J oh ns on Ha lle , No. W2006-00195- CCAMR3C D, 2006 WL 3731193, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, D ec. 15, 2006). During the party , Petitioner and the victim, Dennis Vance Gulley , eng ag ed in a phy sical alter cation. Id. at *1-3. At some point, Petit ioner a nnounced she was going to shoot Mr. Gulley and we nt inside the house. S h o rt l y t h er ea ft er , wi t n es s es s aw t h e v i ct i m ru n n i n g o u to f t h e h o u s e w i t h a r ag o nh i s h ea d s ay i n g, “She shot me.” Id. at * 1 -3. Mr. Gulley ran to a friend’ s house and wa s eventua lly taken to the-2-

hospital in an ambulance

. Id. a t *1 . As a re su lt of the sh oo tin g , th e vic timha d tw o b ull e t ho le s in the back of hi s head that wer e two or t hree inches a part. Id. at *2. At the conc lusion of her trial, a Tipton County

J ury convicted Petitioner of

rec kless ag g ravated assault. Id. at *5. The tria l court
sentenc ed Petitioner to twelve y ear s. Id. at *6. Petitioner was unsuc cessf ul on appea l from bot h her conviction and he r sentenc e. Id. at *1.

P etition for P ost-c onviction Relief

On Ap ri l 11 , 2 00 7, Pe tit ion e r f ile d a pr o s e Pe tit ion

fo r P os t- c on vic tio n Re lie f. Th e po stconviction cour

t appointed counse l, and, on J une 12, 2007, ap p o inted counsel filed a n amende d petition for pos t-conviction re lief. On July 13, 2007, the post-conviction cour t held an evide ntiary hear ing on the petition.

There wer e thre e witnesses at the evidentiar y hear ing. Danny Hog an, the Gene ral Sessions Prog ram Dire ctor for T i p t o n C o unty , testified that in 2002 and 2003, he w as employ ed by Professional Counseling Service s in Tipton County

. He was involved with the Petitioner’s alcohol and drugthera

py treatment. During the sessions, Mr. Hog an hea rd Petit i o n er co m p l ain about her live-in boy friend being both verba lly and phy sically abusive. She also complained that he would not
pa y his po rt ion

of the re nt. Tr ia l c ouns e l ne ve r a pp ro a c he d M r. Ho g an to inv e sti g a te any c omp la int s Pe tit ion e r m a de a g a ins t th e vic timduri ngthe the ra py se ssi on s.

Pe tit ion e r t e sti fi e d at th e evi de nti ary he ari ng . Sh e state d th a t Mr . G ull e y wa s th e liv e -i n boy friend w hom she ref

ere nced in the thera

py sessions w ith Mr. Hog an. Petitioner told trial counsel that she believe d her history of abuse cause d by

Mr. Gulley

would be re levant to her

defe nse. She
te sti fi e d th a t sh e re fe rr e d tri a l c ouns e l to he r r e c or ds wi th h e r c ouns e lor and ps y c hiatr ist . Sh e a lso
state d that c ouns e l did no t su bp oe na the vic tim ’s me dic a l re c or ds c on c e rn ing tr e a tme nt of h is wounds. I n addition, she maintained that when trial counsel c ame to see her, he never produce d any ph oto g ra ph s o r f or e ns ic e vid e nc e fo r h e r. Pe tit ion e r b e lie ve d th a t tr ia l c ouns e l di d n ot i nv e sti g a te her c ase in orde r to form a de fense strateg y . She stated that she spoke with trial counsel thre e times befor e trial. Petitioner stated that trial counsel did e x plain the char g e and that i t wa s a s ev ere offe nse. Howe ver, Petitioner c laimed that trial counse l did not ex plain that her pr evious convictions

wo uld le a d to a se nte nc e a s a

c are e r o ff

e nd e r. Pe tit ion e r a lso te sti fi e d that tr ia l c ouns e l sa id h e fe lt ill at the t rial. Petitioner claimed that trial c ounsel stated he f elt like he wa s having a hea rt attac k. On the da y of the tr ia l, Pe tit ion e r did no t be lie ve that sh e or he r a tto rn e y wa s r e a dy

fo r t ri a l be c a us e trial counsel ha d not completed an inve stigation so that proper evidenc e could be broug ht before the court. Petitioner could not re call trial c ounsel raisin g any issue of self- defe nse base d upon her

c on fr on ta tio n o ve r t

he g un wi th t he vic timor

the his tor

y of a bu se pe rp e tr a te d b y

the vic tim

.

On cr oss-examination at the evid en t i ar y h ear ing, Petitioner state d that she could not

reme mber that a

notice had be en filed c oncer ning he r st atus as a car eer offe nder. Petit ioner c laimed
t h at s h e d i d

n o tre al i z e h o w m an y

p ri o r f el o n i es s h e h ad an d t h at t h e f el o n i es wo u l d

af fe ct h er ra n ge of punishment. S h e al s o could not rec all telling tria l counsel that she wa s not the same per son as-3-

My rna Johnson who had rec eived f org ery convictions in Tipton Count y . Petitioner did not

reme mber trial c ounsel bring ing he r any sort of settlement off

er f rom the State and did not know whether such an of

fer was made . Petitioner stated that she did te stify at trial and that she knew the

same inf or ma tio n e lic ite d at th e the ra py se ssi on s. Pe tit ion e r did a tte mpt to br ing up a t tria l the a bu se perpe trated by

Mr. Gulley
, the fac t that he was in a ng er manag ement, and the fa ct that he ha d been

arr ested for

domestic v i o l en ce

. Howeve r, she state d that she wa s not able to finish her state ment with reg ard to the dome stic violence a rre st. Petitioner admitted that sometime befor e trial she w as

arr e ste d a nd inc arc e rate d in Missi ssi pp i. She did re me mbe r m iss inghe r i nit ia l tr ia l date bu t c ou ld not remembe r if the date occ urre d during her incarc eration. Wit h reg ard to her alleg ation that trial counsel wa s ill at trial, she st ated that trial counsel complained of his che st hurting a nd trial counsel “kept having to g o g et wate r.” She a lso contended that trial counsel was inef fec tive for not g etting her rec ords to show that she had been in ongoingthera py sessions for abuse . She also believe d trial

c ouns e l w a s ine ff

e c tiv e be c a

us e he did no t ra ise the iss ue tha t th e vic timwa

nte d to dr op the c ha

rg e s. Ac c or din g to P e tit ion e r, the vic timwa s n ot a sk e d th is q ue sti on a t th e tr ia l.

Tr ia l c ouns e l w a s th e fi na l w itn e ss a t th e e vid e nti ary he ari ng

. He te sti fi e d th a t he sp ok e wi th Petitioner “consider ably

more than thre e times. ” He stated that he wa s repr esenting Petitioner on

mor e tha n one mat ter at that ti me , s o h e c ou ld n ot r e c a ll e xac tly ho w m any

tim e s th e y

me t w ith

re g ard to thi s c a se

. Tr ia l c ouns e l state d that he did sp e a k wi th the vic tim and Pe titio ner a nd th e ir situation was a ty

pical domestic a

buse situation. Trial counse l also st at ed that he appr oache d the State beca use the victim told trial counsel that he did not want to pur sue the char g es. Trial counse l
state d th a t th e re la tio ns hip be tw e e n Pe tit ion e r a nd Mr

. Gu lle y

wa s p art of his tr ia l strate g y

be c a us e Mr. Gulley

testified that he was not sure Petitioner shot him and that he was unde r the influenc e of alcohol. Tria l counsel did not re m ember Petiti oner dire cting him to P rofe ssional Counseling, but he did re me mbe r spe a kin g wi th he r ab ou t the his tor y of a bu se

. Tr ia l c ouns e l te sti fi e d th a t he c ho se

no t to purs ue the a

bu se ang le a s a

tr ia l stra te g y be c a us e Mr . G ull ey was a lr e a dy tr y ingto h e lp Petitioner at trial. Trial counsel stated he w as af raid of a lienating the jury

if they beg an ac cusing the vic timof the a bu se becau se he wa s a lr e a dy te sti fy ingin P e tit ion e r’ s f

a vo r. Tr ia l c ouns e l di d
approa ch the State to g et some sort of plea ag ree ment, but the State had no intere st in offe ring

any thi ng . T ri a l c ouns e l di d not sub po e na Mr . G ull e y ’s me dic a l r e c or ds be c a us e the re wa s n o d isp ute that he had be en shot. Trial c ou n s el ’s g oal was to g et a c onviction of rec kless endang erme nt or a less e r

- in c lu d e d offe nse of r eckle ss endang erme nt. There fore , he did not pursue a theory as to whethe r the sh oo tin g wa s an a c c ide nt. Tr ia l cou ns e l als o re fe re nc e d the fa c t tha t a t th e tim e of the inc ide nt, at least one witness hear d Petitioner state that she was g oing to shoot the victim. Trial counsel stated that he did

fe e l il l th e da

y of the tr ia l. H ow e ve r, he state d tha t he do e s n ot h a ve any he art pr ob le ms. He be lie ve d th a t he ha d a

c omb inatio n o f a

sin us inf e c tio n a nd ba c k p ro ble m a t th e tim e of the tr ia l. He stat e d t h a th e w a s c o u g h i n g qu i t e a b i tt h a td ay

. T r i a l c o u n s e l s t a t e d t h a th e t h o u g h th e c o u ld have done better if he had bee n in perfe ct hea lth, but he did n o t think it impaired him to the point of be ing ine ff

e c tiv e . I f h e ha d f

e lt s o im pa ir e d, he wo uld

have inf or me d th e jud g e . T ri a l c ouns e l f e lt like he had e noug h time to investigate. He pointed out that most of t he facts were not at issue. Tr ial counsel ha d problems keeping in contac t with Petitioner beca use she would “drop out of si g ht.” He la te r f ound ou t th a t sh e ha d b e e n in c arc e ra te d in Mis sis sip pi. Tr ia l c ouns e l te sti fi e d th a t th e on ly offe r made by t h e S t at e wa s to plead as c harg ed. He also testified that the State filed the car eer-4-

offe nder n o t i ce an d that he informe d Petitioner. Trial counse l also told P etitioner what her prior criminal history was that made her a ca ree r off ender . Petitioner did inform trial counsel that a ll the

c on vic tio ns all eged by

the State we re no t a g a ins t he r, bu t he pu lle d th e un de rl y ingwa rr a nts in Tipton, and they

wer e indee d her.

Th e po st- c on vic tio n c ourt de nie d a nd di sm is sed the p e tit ion by wr itt e n o rd e r. Th e po stc on vic tio n c ourt

ma de the fo llo wi ngfi nd ing s o f f a c t:

Petitioner alleg es t hat counsel failed to investigate. [Trial c ounsel] testi fied

a bo ut h is i nv estig a tio n a

nd the wi tne sse s h e sp ok e wi th. Th e fa c ts w e re no t in dispute. Counsel had difficulty maintaining contact with his client. Duringa portion of the time Petitioner was inc arc erated i n Mississ ippi on other cha rg es. Petitioner has failed to show pr ejudice by any failure in this reg ard. She state s t h at t h e vicitm’s medical r ecor ds should have bee n subpoened to co urt. Howe ver, [P] etitioner shot the vic timin t

he he a d. Th e state on ly

ha d to sh ow

bo dil y inj ur y , n ot s e ri ou s b od ily injury . Petitioner failed to show how the medical recor ds would have he lped, or that the re su lt w ou ld h a ve be e n d if fe re nt.

Petitioner alleg es that counse l should ha v e re q u i red the testimony of Mr. Hog an, to show that the Petitioner has complained about the abusive c onduct of the victim. The victim, Mr. Gulley , testified he lived with Petitioner and her mother. He
argued with Petitioner and wa s hit in the head. He we nt in the house and testified he was shot from behind. Petit ioner testified she foug ht with the victim. S he aske d the victim to st op hurting her a nd went to g et her

gun. She testified she shot the g un.

Petitioner failed to show how the testimony of Mr. Hog an would have been be ne fi c ia l, o r t

hat couns e l wa s def

ic ie nt in not pr e se nt[i ng ] thi s te sti mony . I t w ou ld have be e n only state me nts of Pe tit ion e r ma de be fo re tr ia l. Pe tit ion e r t e sti fi e d at tr ia l.

Mr. Cartwr ight testified he s poke with Mr. Gull ey who was trying to help the [P ]etit ioner be fore trial an d d i d n ot want her prosec uted. The jury

hear d the testimony and found [P] etitioner g uilty of a le sser include d offe nse.
No plea of

fer was made by

the state to the defe ndant. Ther efor e counse l was not deficie nt by

failing to discuss a plea of fer with [ P] etitioner, or in dis cussing the possibili ty

of proba tion. Petit ioner is a c are er offende r and has multiple convictions and has be en throug h sever al cour t proce eding s.
Petitioner complains she was denied a speedy trial. She failed to a ppear for her or igina l trial date a

nd her bond w as called. I t w as also ca lled at another time for failure to appea

r or maintain c ontact with her attorney

. She was indi cted in March-5-

2004, and had jur

y trial in J anuar

y 2005, which was not undue delay . She has fa iled to demonstrate a

ny prejudice by

the trial date

.

Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l.

AN AL YSI S

On appe al, Petitioner argues that the post-c onviction c ourt err ed in deny ing a nd dismiss ing her pe tition for post-conviction relief

. I n her brief, Petitioner argues that trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive be c a us e he did

no t c a ll h e r c ouns e lor , M r. Ho g an, to te sti fy a t tr ia l; he did no t c a ll h e r p sy c hiatr ist
, Dr. Knott, to testify

at trial; he did not investigate the victim’s medica l rec ords to prepa re aselfdefe nse theory ; he did not investigate any self-de fense issues; he only met with he r three times prior to trial; and he did not ca ll an expert witness reg ardingdomestic abuse.

The post-c onviction court’s finding s of fa ct are conc lusive on appea l unless the evidenc e preponde rate s otherwise. See State v . Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). During our re view of t he is sue raised, we will aff ord t hose findings of fact t he weight of a jury verdic t, and this Court is b ound by the c ourt ’s fi nd ing s unl ess th e e vid e nc e in t he re c or d p re po nd e rate s a g a ins t th os e finding s. Se e He nle

yv . S tat e , 9 60 S.W. 2d

57 2, 57 8 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; Al le yv . S tat e , 958 S.W .2d 138, 14 7 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). Th is Cou rt may no t re we ig h o r r e e va luate the e vid e nc e , n or su bs tit ute its infe renc es for

those draw n by

the post-conviction cour

t. Se e Sta te v . H

on e y c utt , 54 S.W .3d 762, 766 (Tenn. 2001) . Howeve r, the post-c onviction court’s c onclusions of law are revie wed unde r a purely de novo standa

rd with no presumption of cor rec tness. S

e e F i e ld s v . Stat e , 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001)

. When a petitioner see ks post-conviction relief on t h e b asis of ineff

ective a ssistance of counsel, the pe titioner bears the burden of showing that (a) the servic es re ndere d by trial counsel

wer e def icient and ( b) that the de ficient pe rfor mance was pre

judicial. S

e e P o w e r s v

. Sta te , 942 S.W .2d 551, 558 (Tenn. Cri m

. Ap p. 1996). In order to demonstrate de ficient pe rfor mance , the petitioner m ust show that the service s rende red or the advice g iven was be low “the r ang e of competenc e dema

nded of attorney s in criminal case s.” Ba x te r v . R os e , 523 S.W .2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 19 7 5 )

. I no r d e r

t o d e m o n s t r a t e p r e

j u d i c e , t h e p e t i t i o n e r

mu s ts h o w t h a tt h e r e i s a r e a s on a ble probabi li ty th a t, b u t f

o r c o u n s e l’ s d e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o r ma n c e , th e r e s u lt o f th e p r o c e e d in g w o u ld ha ve been dif fer ent. See Strick

land v. W ashington , 4 66 U. S. 6 68 , 6 94 (1 98 4)

. “ B e c a us e a pe tit ion e r m

us t

e sta bli shbo th pr on g s of the te st to pr e va il on a c la im of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, f

a ilure to prove e ither def

icient per formanc e or r esul t i n g p re judice provide s a suffic ient basis to deny relief on the claim.” Henley , 960 S.W .2d at 580.

As no te d a

bo ve , th is C ourt

wi ll aff ord t he po st- c on vic tio n c ourt ’s fa c tua l f ind ing s a presumption of cor

rec tness, ren d er ing the m conclusive on a ppeal unless the r ecor d preponde rate s ag ainst the court’s finding s. See id. at 578. Howeve r, our supreme c ourt has “de termined that issues of def icient per formanc e by

counsel a nd possible prejudice to the defe nse are mix ed questions of law-6-

and fa ct . . . ; thus, [ appellate ] review of [these issues] is de novo” wi t h n o p re s u m ption of

corr ectne ss. Burns , 6 S.W .3d at 461.

F ur the rm or e , o n c la ims of

ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, the pe tit ion e r is n ot e nti tle d to the bene fit of hindsight. Se e Ad k ins v . S tat e , 9 11 S.W. 2d

33 4, 34 7 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ). Th is Court may

not second-guess a r easona bly -base d trial strateg y , and we cannot g rant relief based on a sound, but unsucce ssful, tactica l decision made dur ing the course of the proc eedin gs. See id. Ho we ve r, su ch defe ren c e to t he ta c tic a l de c isi on s o f c ouns e l a pp lie s o nly

if c ouns e l make s th os e decisions afte r ade quate pr epar ation for the c ase. Se e Coo pe r v . S tat e , 847 S.W .2d 521, 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).

We first addre ss Petiti oner’ s arguments with reg ard to trial c ounsel’s failure to ca ll her
p s yc h i a t r i s t , D r

. K

n o t t , an d h i s f

a i l u r e t o c a l l an e x p e rt t o t e s t i f y a b o u t d o m e s t i c a b u s e m e n t a l i t y. As Petitioner conce des in her a rg ument conce rn i n g an expert witness on domestic abuse , it is t he petitio n er ’s duty

to produce a witness at the post-c onviction hear ing to support he r ar g ument that trial counsel f

ailed to pre sent a witness at trial. State v. Black , 7 94 S.W. 2d

75 2, 75 7 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ). Pe tit ion e r pr e se nte d ne ith e r an e xpe rt on do me sti c a bu se me nta lity no r Dr. Kno tt. There fore , Petitioner has fa iled to demonstrate c ounsel’s ineff ectivene ss in no t c a ll in g

th e s e p o te ntial witnesses.

Petitioner also argues that trial counse l was ineff ective in f

ailing to pr esent Mr. H og an at trial. Mr. Hog an wa s a witness at the post-c onviction hear ing. A s stated above , he testified that he

reme mbere d that Petitioner mentioned that her live-in boy friend w as abusive. T rial counse l stated that he dec ided not to present e vidence of domestic abuse at t rial as part of his trial strateg y

. Trial

c ouns e l te sti fi e d th a t Mr. Gu lle y wa s bei ng ve ry he lpf ul to the de fe ns e bo th be fo re and duri ngtr ia l. Trial counsel did not want to a lienate the jury and damag e Petitioner’s cre dibilit y by p ai n t i n g the victim in a bad light whe n he wa s being helpful to Petitioner’s ca se. As stated a bove, this Court may not second guess a r easona bly based tria l strateg y

. See A dkins
, 9 11 S.W .2d at 347. We conclude that trial counsel was adequately prepa red for t rial and that his hesitancy to paint the victim in a bad lig ht w a s w e ll- fo un de d in a c a se wh e re the re wa s v ir tua lly no di sp ut e a s to the un de rl y ingfa c ts. Th e re fo re , Pe tit ion e r c ann ot m e e t th e fi rs t pr on g that tr ia l c ouns e l’ s p e rf or manc e was deficie nt i n this reg ard. In addition, even if his perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt, Petiti oner w ould be unable to pr ove prejudice beca

use she was able to a

nd did te stify about the history of abuse bet we en h er an d t he

v i c t i m

. T h e r e f

o r e , e v i d e n c e o f

t h e h i s t o r

y o f a b u s e w a s p r e s e n t e d

t o t h e j u r y.

Th e same ana ly sis a

pp lie s to Pe tit ion e r’ s argume nts c on c e rn ing tr ia l c ouns e l’ s fa ilure to pr e pa re a se lf -d e fe ns e the or

y or inv e sti g a te se lf

-d e fe ns e iss ue s. Tr ia l couns e l sta te d tha t th e vic tim testified in an attempt to help Petitioner. He stated that he did not want to pa int the vic tim in a bad lig ht a nd dama g e his c re dib ili ty wi th t he jur y . Pe tit ion e r s pe c if

ic a lly argue s th a t tr ia l c ouns e l sh ou ld have obta ined the victim’s medical r ecor ds to support a theory of self- defe nse. Tria l counsel stated that the re cords would ha ve bee n of no help be cause at least one wi t n es s s t ated that he hear d Petitioner say

she wa s g oing to shoot the victim. I n addition, the re was no dispute at trial that the victim had been shot in the ba ck of the head. T ri al counse l adequately investigated the ca se.-7-

F u rt h e r m o r e , t r i a l c o u n s e l ’ s d e c i s i o nn o tt o a t t a c k t h e v i c t i m c o u l d a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d

t r i a l s t r a t e g y. T h e r e is a d e qu a te e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d to s u p p o rt th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n c o u rt. We find that the ser

vices re ndere d Petitioner were not deficie nt. I n addition, e ven if the service s were defic ient, Petitioner, once a g ain, ca nnot prove prejudice. There was evidence prese nted to the jury throug h witnesses that she a nd the victim were involved in an alter cation immediately prior to the sh oo tin g . F or

thi s r e a so n, sh e c ann ot c ompl ain th a t th e re su lt w ou ld h a ve be e n d if fe re nt b e c a

us e the re wa s e vid e nc e of

the a lte rc a tio n p re se nte d to the jur y . T he re fo re , th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

Withre g ard to P e tit ion e r’ s argume nt t hat tr ia l c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e du e to m e e tin g wi th her only three times, we also fin d sufficie nt evidence to support the post-conviction cour t’s conclu s i o n

. Trial counse l testified that he met with her more than thre e times and that he was

re p re s en t i n g h er

o nm o re t h an o n e c h ar ge. He s ai d t h at t h ey o ft en d i s cu s s ed m o re t h an o n e c h ar ge

a t on e vis it. Th e po st- c on vic tio n c ourt c le arl y fo un d tr ia l c ouns e l mo re c re dib le . I ssu e s o f c re dib ili ty

are an is sue decided by the t rier of fac t, in this case the post-conviction cour t. Sta te v . P ru e tt , 788 S.W. 2d 55 9, 56 1 ( Te nn .1 99 1) . T he re fo re , th is i ssu e ha s n o me ri t.

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 t

he po st- c on vic tio n c ourt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE