### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 5, 200 5

WILLIAM BR OWN v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Willi am son Coun ty

No. 203-080 R.E. Lee Davies, Judge

No. M2004- 01898-CCA -R3-P C - F iled May 17, 2005

The pe titioner, Wi lliam Brown, a ppeals the tria l court’s de nial of his petition for post-conviction relief . The sing le issue pre sented for revie w is whether

the petitioner w as d en i ed the e ffe ctive

a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l. A ft e r r e vie wi ng the re c or d, we a ff ir m the dis mis sa l of the pe tit ionfo r p os tconviction re lief.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Dana M. Ausbrooks, Fr anklin, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Will iam Br own.

Paul G. Sum me rs , Attorne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Ronald L . Davis, District Att orney Gene ral; and Mary Katharine W hite, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F acts and P roce dural Hi story

I n J une 2002 the pe titioner pled g uilty to ag g ravated robbe ry , a Class B f elony , and re ceive d
a sente nce of

twenty y ear s in the Department of Correc tion as a Rang e I I offe nder. In Fe bruary

2003 the petitioner filed a

pro-se post-conviction petition, arg uing that the conviction was ba sed upon an inv o l u n t ar y

g u i l t y p l e a , i l l e g a l e v i d e n c e , a n d th a th e r e c e i v e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c ou ns e l. There afte r, post-convic tion counsel was appointed and an amende d petition was filed. The amende d petition consolidated the petitioner’ s arg uments into the single issue o f i n eff ective a ssistance of counsel.

I n a hea ring conducte d on the petition in April 2004, the petitioner testified that he e ntere d

a n in vo lun tary

ple a be c aus e c ou ns e l ne ve r a dv ise d him a s to his po te nti a l se nte nc e . H e state d th a t,-2-

had he be en prope rly

informed, he would have insist ed on proce eding to trial. He a lso complained that counsel failed to call a witness and failed to a llow him to te stify at the sentenc ing he aring . To the c on tr ary , c ou ns e l te sti fi e d that it wa s the pe tit ion e r’ s de c isi on no t to pr oc e e d to tr ia l a ndno t to testify at the sente ncing hearing. Counsel f urther te stified that the petitioner spec ifically asked he r

n o tt o ca l l t h e w i t n es s att h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g.

I n a n o rd e r d e nying po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f, the tr ia l c ou rt state d:

Th e c a se was se t f

or tr ia l; h ow e ve r, a ft e r r e vie wi ng his c on fe ssi on wi th [co un se l] on mor e than o ne oc c a sio n, [the pe tition e r] mad e a de c isi on he didno t w ish to g o to tr ia l a nda g re e d to ple a d g uil ty to the c ha

rg e of a g g ra vate d rob berya s a Rang e I I offe nder. [The petitioner] plead g uiltyon J une 5, 2002. At this he aring the trial court

ma de it c le ar t o [the pe tit ion e r] that [ the pe tit ion e r] w a s o ff e ri ng to p le a d g uil ty

a s a Ra ng e I I of fe nd e r w hic h c arrie d w ith it a ra ng e of pu nis hme nt fr om twe lve to t we nty y ear s and that the sente nce phase would be conducte d by the trial court at a later

date. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

sp e c if ic a lly a sk e d [th e pe tit ion e r] if a ny pr omi se s ha d be e n ma de to him r eg arding the plea ag ree ment. [The pe titioner] said no. The trial cour t then asked [the petitioner] if he wa s satisfied with the servic es of his at t o rn ey . [The pe tit ion e r] s a id y e s. Th e se state me nts by [the pe tit ion e r] c omp le te ly un de rc ut h is main complaint reg arding [counsel] that she promised him if he would make an open plea, she could g uarantee a twelve- y ear

sentenc e. [The petitioner] also complains about [counsel’s] assistance at the sentenc ing hearing. T he Court finds [that c ounsel] discussed the option of testify ing w ith [ the petitioner] and that [t he petitioner] made the decision not to testify . [The petitioner] also reque sted [counsel] not to subpoena his g randmother beca use of he r hea lth. After revie wing the videotape s of the hea ring s on Fe bruary 26, 2002, J une 5, 2002 and September

27, 2002, and afte r revie wing the testimony of [the petitioner] and [ counsel] in this hearing , the Court conclude s [t hat counse l] was we ll prepar ed

a nd re pr e se nte d he r c lie nt wi thi n th e rang e of c on fi de nc e de ma nd e d o f atto rn e y s in criminal ca ses.
The pe titioner now bring s this appeal.

Ana lys is

Th e pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t hi s tria l c ou ns e l w a s d e fi c ie nt f or faili ng to: (1 ) p ro pe rl y

a dv ise him concerning his sentenc e and for refusing to proce ed to trial; (2) call a witness at t he sente ncing h ea ri n g; an d (3 ) a l l o w h i mt o t es t i fyat t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g.

I n o rd er t o s u cc ee d o n a p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n cl ai m , t h e p et i t i o n erb ea rs t h e b u rd en o f s h o wi n g, by clea r and convincing evidenc e, the alleg ations set forth in the petit ion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30- 110(f) (2003). To support a claim of i neff ective assistance of counsel, the pe titioner bear s the burden-3-

o f s h o w i n g t h a th i s c o u n s e l ’ s p e rf o r m a n c e f e l l b e l o w t h e r a n g e o f

c o m p e t e n c e d e m a n d e d o f a t t o r n e ys in criminal ca ses. B axter v. Ros e, 5 2 3 S

. W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). This showing require s

e v id e n c eth at: ( 1 ) c o u n s el’s performanc e wa s deficie nt; and (2) the de ficienc y prejudice d the def

ense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Burns, 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). To satisfy

the “pr ejudice” prong in a ca se in which the pe titioner pled g uilty , the petitioner “must show that there is a rea sonable proba bilitythat, but for counse l’s err ors, he would not have pleade d g uiltyand would have insisted on g oing to tria l.” Hill v. L ockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).

The unde rly ing issues in c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel are reg arde d as mix ed qu e sti on s o f l a w an d fact

. Burn s, 6 S. W.3 d at 46 1. As su c h, ou r r e vie w i s de novo with a presumption of correc tness g iven t o the post-conviction court’s finding s of fa ct unless the evide nce preponde rate s otherwise. See Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001).

Th e pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t c ou ns e l w a s in e ff ect iv e fo r f

a ili ng to c a ll a

wi tne ss at hi s

se nte nc ing he ari ng . Co un se l te sti fi e d th a t th e pe tit ion e r s pe c if ic a lly re qu e ste d h e r n ot to cal l this wi tne ss. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

a c c re dit e d c ou ns e l’ s te sti mon y and fou nd th e iss ue to b e wi tho ut m e ri t. Review of this finding is unnece ssary as the issue lacks merit beca use t he petiti oner failed to pre sent the wi tne ss a t the po st- c on vic tio n he ari ng

. “ Whe n a pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t tria l c ou ns e l f a ile d to discover, interview, or pr esent witn es s es in support of his defe nse, these w itnesses should be prese nted by the petitioner at the evidentiary hearing.” Bla ck v. State, 794 S.W .2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Gene rally , this presentation is the onl y way a petiti oner can prove: (1) a materia l witness exis ted who could ha ve bee n d is c o v e red but for counsel’s ne g lige nt investigation of the ca se; (2) a known witness was not interview ed; (3) the failure to discover or interview the witness cause d him prejudice; or ( 4) the failure to prese nt a known witness re sulted in the denial of critica l evidence which ca used the pe titioner prejudice . I d.

The pe titioner next arg ues that he e ntere d anin voluntary plea due to the ineffe ctive assistanc e of counse l. The trial court based its finding s on this is sue upon the testimony of counse l and the petitioner at the post-c onviction hearing and u p o n t h e transcript of the sentenc ing and g uiltyplea hearings. The rec ord bef ore this Court is absent transc ripts o f t h e sentenc ing and g uiltyplea hearings. In the abse nce of an adequate rec ord, i t will be presumed that the evidenc e supports the trial court’ s rulings or

actions. See State v. Oody
, 823 S.W .2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) ; State v. Jone s, 62 3 S. W.2 d 1 29
, 13 1 (Tenn . Crim. Ap p. 19 81 ). I t is the du ty of the pe tit ion e r t o prepa re a rec ord which c onvey s a fair, acc urate , and complete acc ount of what tra nspired in the trial

c ou rt wi th r e sp e c t to the iss ue s whi c h f orm th e ba sis of

his app e a l. T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 2 4( b) ; Se e Sta te v. Hopper , 695 S.W .2d 530, 537 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) . Consequently , we de termine that the tria l court’s f inding, that the pe titioner entere d a voluntary plea, is cor

rec t.

I n his fi na l arg ume nt, the pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t c ou ns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e fo r d e nying him the rig ht to testify

at the sentencing hearing. Counsel testified at the post-conviction hea ring that she g ave the petitioner advice concerning whether or not he shoul d testify
, but left t he ult imate dec ision up to the peti t i o n er

. C o u n s el stated that the pe titioner whispere d his decision not to testify to her during the sentenc ing he aring . To the contra ry , th e p et i tioner testified that he specific ally asked-4-

counsel t o al l o w h i m to testify . The trial c ourt ac cre dited the testimony of counse l, finding that

“ [co un se l] di sc us se d th e op tio n o f t e sti fying

. . . a ndthat [th e pe tit ion e r] m a de the decision no t to testify .” The evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst this finding.

Conclusion

Ba sed upon the fore g oing, we aff irm the dismissal of the petition for post-conviction re lief.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE