1 The reco rd refle cts seve ral inco nsistenc ies in the sp elling of the App ellant’s first nam e. As is the po licy of this

cou rt, we have adopted t he spell ing t

hat appears on the i nit ial plead ing filed in th e case , i.e. , the pro se petition for po stconvi cti on relief. However, we not e th at t he name als o appears as: (1) “ Alf onso” Ch almer s on t

he amen ded pet it ion f

or reli ef and on the Ap pellan t’s brief; (2) “Alph onso ” Ch alme rs on the trial cou rt’s order denyi ng re li ef; and (3) “Alf onzo” Cha lmers o n the o pinio n filed b y this cou rt on d irect ap pea l. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON Assigned on

Briefs M ay 6, 2003 ALPHONZ O CHALMERS v. S TATE OF TENNES SEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. P-25919 J. C. McLin, Judge

No. W2002-02270-CCA-R3-PC - F iled June 13, 2003

The Appellan

t, Alphonzo

Chalmers , 1 ap pe al s t he Sh el by C ounty Cri minal Cour t’s denia l of his petition for p o st-conviction relief. On appeal, Chalmers arg ues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the rec ord, we find that Chalmers’ brief fails to provide any argument in support of the issue pre sented. Due to his pr ocedura l defaul t, the appeal is dismissed. Tenn. R. App.P. 3; Ap peal Dism issed. D AV ID G. H AYES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J OE G. R ILEY and J OHN E VERE TT W ILLI AMS , JJ., joined. Robert L ittle, Map lewood, N

ew Jersey , for the

Appellan t, Alphonzo

Chalmers

. Paul G. Summers, Attorne y General and Reporter; Michael Moore, Solicitor General; John H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Ray Lepone, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tenne ssee.

OPINION Factua l Background On Decemb er 2, 199 9, the App ellant wa s convict ed of first degree m

urder by a

Shelby County jury and received a

sentence of

life in prison. The Appellant’s conviction and sentence were-2-

affirmed by a pane

l of this court

on direct appeal. State v. A lfonzo Chalmers , No. W2000-00440- CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Apr. 4, 2001). The Appellant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief on November 27, 2001, and, after appointment of

counsel, an amended petition was filed on March 21, 2002, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary he aring, the post-conviction court dismissed the Appellant’s petition. This appeal followed. Analysis On appeal, the Appellant asserts that the quality of representation pro vided by his trial counsel constituted ineffective as sistance of counse

l. To succ essfully

assert such a cha

lle ng e, the Appellant bea rs the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence , that counsel’s representationfell below the range of competence demanded of attorney s in criminal cases. Baxter v. Rose , 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1 975); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) (1997). Under Stricklan d

v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984), the Appellant mus t es ta bl is h b ot h: (1 ) d ef

ic ie nt re pr es en ta ti on , a nd (2 ) p re ju di ce re su lt in g f

ro m t he de fi ci en cy. The issues of deficient performance by counsel and possible prejudice to t he defense are mixed questions of

law and fact. State v. Burns , 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). “[A] trial court’s findings of fact

underlying

a claim of ineffective assistance of counse l are reviewed on appeal under a de novo standard, accompanied with a presumption t hat those findings are correct unless the preponderance

of the evidence is otherwise.” Fields v. State , 40 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001) (citing T enn. R. App. P. 13 (d); Henley v. State , 960 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997)). However, conclusions of law are reviewed under a p ur el y de novo standard, with no presumption of correctness. Id. In this appe al, the Ap

pellant contends t hat the representation he received f rom his trial counsel was ineffective. Despite the assertions of ineffectiveness, the Appellant’s brief contains no references to the record or any authority or arg

ument in support of these factual allegations. The Appellan t’s entir e argu ment is recited asfollows: The representation [the Appellant] received from his counsel failed to rise to the level of competence required in Ba xter v. Ros e , 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975), in that counsel: (1) failed to prepare adequate ly for tr ial; (2) did not raise the issue of diminished capacity

before the jury

or at trial or onappeal; and (3) d id not prop erly conduct his appeal nor preserve

all his issues for appellate review nor seek relief on all avail able app ellate is sues. Without arguing the

entire record, Appellant wishes to point out that the State did not in any way contrad ict Appellant’s contention th at his counsel d idnot prese

rve all h is issues on a

ppeal.2 The Appellant’s asser tion that the defen se of d iminishe d cap acity was not pr esente d to the juryappears to be com pletely inaccu rate. Both the Appell ant and t rial counsel test

ifi ed that the i ssue was put be fore the juryand, inde ed, com prised trial cou nsel’s strate gy for the case. -3- The court should find that the post-convictioncourt erred in failing to find that Mr. Chalmers’ trial counsel was ineffective.

Howeve r, the Appellant’s argument fails to identify the alleged areas of def icient trial preparation, fails to articulate as to how counsel was not adequately prepared for

trial, fails to st

ate why the issue

of diminished capacity should have been ra ised on ap

peal, 2 and fails to specify

how his appeal w as improp erly conducted or

what issue s were not prese rved for appella te review. Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellat e Proced ure prov ides, in r elevant part, tha t: The brief of the appellant shall contain . . . [a]n argument, which may be p receded by a summary

of arg ument, se tting fo rththe contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor , inc luding the reasons why the contentions require appellate relief, with citations to the authorities and appr opriate references to the recor

d (which may be

quoted verbatim) relied on. Tenn. R. App. P. 27 (a)(7) ; see also H arvey v. State , 749 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “Issues which are not

supported by arg

ument, citation to authorities, or appropriate reference s to the record will be treated as waived in this court.” Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b). I n the present

case, the Appellant does not provide this court with any explana ti on as to how trial counsel (1) was deficie nt, or (2) how, but for these deficiencies, there was a r easonable probability

that the jury’s verdict would have been different. I n sum, the Appellant

has failed to comply with Rule 27(a)(7)

. Ac co rd in gl y, we areunable to review t he alleged claimsof ineffectiveness on the merits and find that the Appellant’s issue is procedurally defaulted. This appeal is dismissed. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, we f in d that the Appellant’s issue of ineffective assistance of counsel i s proced

urally defaulted in accor dance with Rule 27( a)(7), Tenness ee Rules o f Appella te Procedure, and R ule 10(b), Tennessee Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE