### 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 7, 200 6
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . CAREY B. HAYNES, JR.
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Dyer County No. C04-418 Lee M oore, Judge

No. W2005-01184-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled April 3, 2006

The ap p e ll a n t, Ca

r e y H a y n e s , Jr

. , w a s in d ic te d b y th e D y e r Co u n ty G r a n d Ju r y f o r o n e count of selling le ss than .5 g rams of coca ine and one count of selling more than .5 g rams of c ocaine . After
a jury tr ia l, the app e lla nt w a s c on vic te d o n b oth c ou nts

. Th e tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d the app e lla nt t o six y ear s for th e co n v i ct i o n fo r the sale of less than .5 g rams of c ocaine and twelve y ear s for the conviction for the sale of more t han .5 g rams of coca ine. The trial court ordere d the s entenc es to run
concur rently to eac h other, but conse cutively to severa l senten ce s fo r wh ich the appe llant was on pr ob a tio n a t the tim e he c omm itt e d the pr e se nt o ff e ns e s. Af te r the de nia l of

a mot ion fo r n e w t

ri a l, the appe llant sought a n appea l, arg uing tha t he re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel at t rial. F or the following rea sons, we af firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court is Aff irm ed

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J

. , d el i v er ed t he opinion of the c ourt, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES , and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined. Charles M. Ag ee, Jr., Dy ersbur g , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Care y

B. H ay es, Jr.
Paul G. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Pre ston Shipp, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; and Phill ip Bivens, District Attorne y Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

J ason McCaslin of the Dy ersbur g Police Depa rtment rec eived information from conf idential inf or ma nt T im B oh a nn on that th e app e lla nt w a s se lli ng c oc a ine

. On Ap ri l 7, 2004 , Of fi c e r M c Ca sli n met with M r. Bohannon. They called the appellant on the te lephone to ar rang e a me eting wher e Offic er Mc Caslin would purchase an ei gh t h of an ounc e of c ocaine from the a ppellant. Mr. Boha nnon and Of

fice r McCaslin ar

rived a t the meeting place in a vehicle t hat was equipped with a video ca mera . When the appellant approa ched the vehicle on his bicy cle, he tossed a small bag of-2-

coca ine to Offic er Mc Caslin through the passeng er- side window. I n exchang e for the c ocaine , the office r g ave the appellant money

. On Ma y 13 , 2 00 4, Of

fi c e r M c Ca sli n a ndMr . B oh a nn on a g a in m e t w ith the app e lla nt t o purcha se coc aine. This mee ting took pla ce at the appe llant’s home. When the two ar rived a t the appellant’ s home, the appellant met them outside and got i nto the passenge r seat of t he vehic le. The vehicle w as ag ain equipped w ith a video ca mera . The appellant produce d a sm all bag of coc aine a nd handed i t t o M r. Bohannon, who hande d it to the officer . Offic er Mc Caslin ga ve money to the appellant. The y

dropped the appellant of

f at a motel after

the exchang e.

I n October

of 2004, the a

ppellant was indicte d for one count of selling le ss than .5 g rams of
coca ine and one count of selling more t han .5 gra ms of coca ine. At trial, Off icer McCaslin testified
a s t o t h e e v e n t s o n A p r i l 7 a n d M a y 1 3 , 2 0 0 4

. T h e v i d e o t ap e s o f t h e e v e n t s w e r e s h o w n t o t h e j u r y.

The jury also hea rd t h e testimony

of Da na Rose, a f

orensic sc ientist with t he Te nnessee B ur e a u o f Inv e sti g a tio n Cr ime L abo ratory
. Ms. Ros e te sti fi e d that the ba g s that the app e lla nt s old to Office r McCaslin containe d 1.9 g rams and .4 g rams of c ocaine , respe ctively

. The appellant took the stand on his own beha lf. He te stified that during the exchang es, he only spoke with Mr. Bohannon and did not provide any one with drug s. The appe llant claimed that he g ot into the vehicle bec ause Mr . Boha nnon offe red him drug s. Howeve r, the a ppellant explained that he did no t g e t to do a ny dr ug s w ith Mr . B oh a nn on be c a us e his g ir lf ri e ndc a lle d a ndwa nte d to meet him.

After hearing the evidenc e, the jury found the a

ppellant g uiltyon bo t h counts. At the
se nte ncing hear in g, thetr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d th e app e lla nt a s a Ra ng e I I , mu lti ple of

fe nd e r t o s ix y ear s for the sa le of less than .5 g rams of c ocaine and to twelve y ear s for the sa le of more than .5 g rams of c ocaine . The trial c ourt order ed t h e s entenc es to run conc urre ntly to eac h other, but
consec utively

to sentence s in three c ases f or which the appell an t was on probation at the time he committed the prese nt offense s.
The a ppellant filed a

motion for new tria l in which he challeng ed the suff iciency of the evide n c e a n d h is s e n te n c e a s e xc e s s iv e

. T h e tria l c o u r t d e n ie d th e mo ti o n

. T h e ap p e ll a n t f iled a timely n otice of a

ppeal. On a

ppeal, the a

ppellant ar g ues that he r ece ived ineff ective a ssistance of counsel a t trial because his trial counsel f ailed to call the c onfidential informa nt, Mr. Boha nnon, as a witness. An a ly sis The a ppellant compla ins that he was de nied the rig ht to effe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel at tr ia l. S pe c if

ic a lly , the app e lla nt c on te nd s that be c a us e “ Mr

. B oh a nn on wa s the on ly oth e r e y e wi tne ss to the alleg ed drug sale other than the def

endant a nd Dy ersbur g Police Offic er J ason McCaslin,” trial counsel should h av e called him as a witness be cause “the jury may have de termined that Mr. Boha nnon was the pe rpetrator of the dr ug s sales and not the de fenda nt.” The State contends that the-3-

iss ue is w a ive d f

or fa ilu re to i nc lud e it i n th e mot ion fo r n e w t ri a l.

We ha ve repe atedly war ned that the decision to r aise this issue on direc t appea l is “fraug ht with peril. ” St a te v
. Jim my L

. Sl u d e r , N o

. 1 2 3 6 , 1 9 9 0 WL 2 6 5 5 2 , a t * 7 ( T e n n

. Crim

. App., at Knoxvi lle, Mar. 14, 1990) , perm. a pp. denied, ( Tenn. 1990). T he def endant risks having the issue
re so lve d f ina lly “ wi tho ut a n e vid e nti ary

he ari ng wh ic h, if

he ld, mig ht b e the on ly

wa y ha rm c ou ld be shown - - a pre requisite for relief in ineffe ctive trial c ounsel claims.” J immy Way ne Wil son v. State, No. 909, 1991 WL

87245, at *6 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, May 29, 1991).

I n o the r w or ds , cla ims of

ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

c ou ns e l are g e ne ra lly

mor e app ro pr ia te ly
ra ise d in a

pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f r a the r tha n o n d ir e c t app e a l. Se e Sta te v. Carr uth e rs , 35 S.W. 3d 51 6, 55 1 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; se e a lso Sta te v. An de rs on , 8 35 S.W. 2d60 0, 60 6 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 1992). Moreove r, once the merits of an ineffe ctive assistance of counsel cl ai m h av e b een addre ssed on direc t appea l, the issue may not b e re visited in a post-conviction proce eding . See B ob by Al le n Joy ne r v . St a te , N o. 03 C01 -9 80 7- CR- 00 26 0, 19 99 WL 31 88 32 , a t *2 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. , a t K no xvill e , M a y

19 , 19 99 ), pe rm . a

pp . d e nie d, (T e nn . 1 99 9) . T hu s, the be tte r p ra c tic e is t o re se rv e the iss ue fo r a

po st- c on vic tio n p ro c e e di ng in the e ve nt the dir e c t a pp e a l is un su c c e ssf

ul. Sta te v. Ric ky B ra nd on , No

. M2 00 2- 00 07 3- CCA -R 3- CD , 2 00 2 WL 31 37 34 70 , a t *2 (T e nn . Cr im. App., at Na shville, Oct. 15, 2002), perm. app. denied, ( Tenn. F eb. 24, 2003).

The a ppellant claims that trial counse l was ineff ective f or fa iling t o ca l l the confide ntial informant as a

witness at trial. This Court revie ws a claim of i neff ective assistance of counsel unde r the standar ds of B axter v. Rose, 523 S.W .2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) , and Strickland v. Washing ton, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The petitioner has the bur den to prove that (1) the attorney ’s per formanc e wa s defic ient, and (2) the deficient perf ormanc e resulted in prejudice to the defendant so as to de prive him of a fair trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996); Butler v. State, 789 S.W .2d 898, 899 (Tenn. 1990) . The fa ilure to prove e ither def ici en cy or prejudice justifies d en i al of relief; there fore , the court need not addr ess the compone nts in any pa rt ic u l ar o r d e r o r e v e n a d d r e s s b o t h i f

o n e i s i n s u f

f i c i e n t

. G o a d , 9 3 8 S

. W

. 2 d a t3 7 0

. I n o r d e r to establish prejudic e, t h e p etitioner must establish a “r easona ble proba bilitythat, but for counse l’s
un pr of e ssi on a l e rr or s, the re su lt o f the pr oc e e din g wo uldha ve be e n d if fe re nt. A r e a so na

ble pr ob abil ity

is a pr ob abil ity

su ff ic ie nt t o u nd e rm ine c on fi de nc e in the ou tc ome .” Str ic kla nd , 46 6 U .S. at 694.

I n o rder to determine w hether counsel provide d eff

ective a ssistance, we examine whether
c ou ns e l’ s p e rf

or ma nc e wa s w ith in the ra ng e of c omp e te nc e de ma nd e d o f atto rn e y s in c ri min a l c a se s. Ba x ter, 523 S.W .2d at 936. The petiti oner must overc ome t he presumption that counsel’s c onduct fa lls wi thi n th e wi de ra ng e of a c c e pta ble pr of e ssi on a l a ssi sta nc e

. Str ic kla nd , 46 6 U. S. a t 68 9; S ta te v. Honey cutt, 54 S.W .3d 762, 769 (Tenn. 2001) . There fore , in order to pr ov e a d ef i ci en cy , a petitioner must show “that counse l’s acts or omissi ons wer e so ser ious as to fall below a n objective standard of

rea sonablene ss under pre vailing pr ofessional norms.” Goad, 938 S.W .2d at 369 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688).-4-

There was no e vidence prese nted at the he aring on t h e motion for new trial to support the appellant’ s claim that trial counse l w as defic ient beca use the issue was not ra ised in the motion for
a new trial

. T h i s i s sue is waived. T enn. R. App. P. 3(e) ; State v. Meade , 942 S.W .2d 561, 566 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (holding failure to raise issue of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel in motion for ne w trial wa ives the issue.)

Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE