### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Marc h 6, 200 7 CHA RLE S ED WAR

D G REE R v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Madison Cou nty No. C-06- 146 Roy Mor gan, Jud ge

No. W2006-01666-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled Jun e 4, 2007

Th e Ap pe lla

nt, Cha rl e s E dw ard

Gr e e r, a pp e a ls the Ma dis on

Co un ty Ci rcuit C ourt ’s de nia l of his petition for post-conviction relief

. On appea l, G ree r raises the single issue of whe ther he was de nied the e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l be c a

us e tr ia l c ouns e l sh ou ld h a ve “ c on vin c e d ” o r “ p e r s u a d e d ” him to testify in his own defense . After revie w of the r ecor d, we f ind no err or and affirm the de nial of the petition. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in whic h J ER R Y L. S MI TH and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.
J . Colin Morris, J ackson, Te nnessee , for the A ppellant, Charles Edw ard G ree r. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Sop hia S. L e e , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; and Rolf Hazelhurst, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
F ac tu al B ac kgr ound Followingthe Appellant’ s three c onvictions for sale of coca ine over 0.5 g rams, the tria l court imposed concur

rent, Rang e I

sentenc es of e ight y ear s for e ach c onviction. The followingfac ts were e sta bli sh e d o n d ir e c t a

pp e a l:
Offic er Rober

t Wesley S t i l well, an investigator w ith the J ackson Police Depa rtment Metro Na

rcotics Unit, empl oy ed the se rvice s of L isa Gail Morris, a confide ntial informant, to assist in an investigation involving il leg al drugsales. On Fe bruar y 18, 19, and 22, 200 3, Ms. Morris, while ac ting unde r the super vision of Offic er Stilwell, made thre e sepa rate purcha ses o f cra ck coc aine f rom the [Appellant]

.-2- Ms

. Morris testified that on F ebrua ry 18, 2003, afte r beingsupplied with $ 160, she purc hased .6 g rams of cra ck coca ine from the [Appellant]. She stated that on the sec ond occa sion, she purcha sed 1.3 g rams of coca ine for the same amount of mon e y . A ft e r a g a in b e ingsu pp lie d w ith$ 1 60 , she re c e ive d . 7 g ra ms o f c oc a ine in he r t hir d p ur c ha se
. Ac c or din g to Ms. Mo rr is, e a c h o f t he tr ans a c tio ns too k p la c e in her c ar while she wa s parke d in f ront of the residenc e of the [Appellant] ' s mother at 169 Holland Street in Jackson. . . .
S ta t e v. Charles Edward Gree r , No. W2004-02724-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, D ec. 2 , 2 0 05), p er m. to appeal denied , (Tenn. Ma r. 20, 2006). A pa

nel of this court a ffirme d the Appellant’s c onvictions on direct appe al. Id

. On April 26, 2006, the Appe llant filed a pr o s e petition for post-conviction re lief, and the post-conviction cour

t appointed counse l to r epre sent him. On July 10, 2006, the cour

t conducted a

n evidentiar y hear ing at which trial counse l, the Appellant, and the jury fore person testified. The Appe llant testified that he believe d the State had a weak case and that if he had testified at his trial, “[he] could have fr eed [hims el f]

. ” He testified to facts fr om which a jury could have conclude d that the conf

idential informant, L isa Morris, was addicted to cocaine at the time she wa s workingunderc over a

nd that she falsely identified hi m as a seller bec ause she neede d to protect the identity of her rea l source.
Th e Ap pe lla

nt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t he dis c us se d w he the r o r n ot h e sh ou ld testif y wi th h is attorney . He f

urther a dmitted “Ig ot a bad r ecor d ” an d t h at his attorney advised him not to testify beca use he c ould be impeac hed with his prior convictions. Moreove r, he admitted that the tria l court a dv i s e d h i mo f t h e c o n s e qu e n c e s o f

t e s t i f yi n g , o r n o tt e s t i f yi n g , an d t h a th e d e c i d e d

n o tt o t e s t i f

y. Additionally , the Appellant sig ned a written form c aptioned “Waiver of Right to Te stify .”
Trial counse l testified that he obtained disc overy from the State a

nd talked to the Appe llant a t le a st twe nty

tim e s in pr e pa ratio n f or the tr ia l. Ne ith e r he no r the State wa s a ble to l oc a te Mo rr is befor e trial, so the c ourt allowed him time to interview he r whe n she appe are d in co u rt on the morning of trial. He testified that he could not have done any thing else to be better

prepa red f or the trial. Trial c ounsel stated that he c halleng ed the State’ s cas e with all the information he ha d and, further , that he had no t l ear ned of a ny additional information which he should have obtaine d. Finally , he testified that he impeache d Morris’ testimony with he r admission of prior coca ine use, as we ll as emphasized the lack of direc t evidence identifying the Appellant as the seller. The post-c onviction court denie d the Appellant’ s petition, by written order , on J uly 20, 2006. On Au g us t 7, 20 06 , th e Ap pe lla nt f ile d h is n oti c e of

a pp e a l.
Ana lys is On appe al, the Appe llant raises the sole issue of whether trial counsel provided ineffe ctive ass is ta n c e o f c o un s e l b a s e d

u p o nth e a dv ic e h e g a v e Ap p e ll an t r e g ar d in g w h e th e r th e Appellant-3-

should waive his constitutional right to testify

. T h e Ap p ellant asser ts “[trial counsel], as an experience d lawy er should have convince d him to testi fy on his own beh al f

. . . . Although [the Appellant] acknowle dg es that it was ultimately h i s choice not to testify , [he contends] that [ trial counsel] c ould ha

ve exercised his influe nce and persua ded him to testify .” The State asser ts that the re c or d s up po rt s th e po st- c on vic tio n c ourt ’s fi nd ing that the Ap pe lla nt m a de an in fo rm e d, str a te g ic d e c i s i o nt o w a i v e h i s r i g h tt o t e s t i f y. A c ourt may g ra nt p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f whe n the c on vic tio n or se nte nc e is vo id o r v oid a ble beca use of the a

bridg ement of a

ny rig ht gua

rante ed by

the Constitut ion of Tenne ssee or the Con sti tut ion

of the Un ite d St a te s. T. C.A . § 40 -3 0- 10 3 ( 20 06 ); V a ug h n v
. S ta te , 2 0 2 S.W .3d 106, 11 5 ( Te nn . 2 00 6) ; Ho we ll v . S tate , 151 S.W .3d 450, 460 (Tenn. 2004) . I n order to be g rante d relief

, a def endant must p ro v e h i s o r her f actua l alleg ations by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e at a n e vid e nti ary

he ari ng . T .C. A. § 4 0- 30 -1 10 (f ) ( 20 06 ); W

ile yv . S tate , 183 S.W .3d 3 1 7 , 325 (Tenn. 2006). I t is well-settled that the abr idge ment of the rig ht to effe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel is a prope r g round for post-conviction re lief. Vaughn , 2 02 S.W. 3d a t 11 5; De an v . S

tate , 59 S.W .3d 663, 667 (Tenn. 2001)

. The ove rall standar d for e valuatinga claim of i neff ective assistance of counsel is “whe ther counsel’s c onduct so undermined the proper functioning of t h e ad v er sarial pr ocess that the tr ial cannot be relied on a s having produce d a just result.” Vaughn , 2 0 2 S

. W

. 3 d at 1 1 6 (c i t i n g Strickland v. W ashington , 4 66 U. S. 6 68 , 6 87 , 1 04 S. Ct . 2 05 2, 20 64 (1 98 4) ). Whe n a pe tit ion e r s e e ks po stconviction re lief on the ba sis of ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel, the pe titioner bear s the burden of showing that (a) the servic es re ndere d by trial counsel we re de ficient a nd (b) that the de ficient perf ormanc e was prejudicia l. Po we rs v . S tate , 9 4 2 S

. W

. 2 d

5 5 1 , 5 5 8 ( T e n n
. C r i m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 6 )

. In order to demonstrate de ficient pe rfor mance , the petitioner must show that the ser vices re ndere d or the advice g iven was be low “the r ang e of c ompetence demande d of attorne y s in criminal case s.” Ba x te r v . R os e , 523 S.W .2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). I n order to demonstrate pr ejudice, the petitioner must show that there wa s a rea sonable proba bility that, but for counse l’s err ors, the re sult of the proce edingwould have be en diffe rent. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. Be cause a petitioner must establish both prong s of the test, a failure to prove either deficient performanc e or resulting prejudice provides a suf ficient basis to de ny relief on the ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim. Id . at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069. The post-c onviction court’s fi n dings of fac t are conclusive on a

ppeal unless the e vidence preponde rate s otherwise. Nic ho ls v . S tate , 90 S.W .3d 576, 586 (Tenn. 2002). This court may not re we ig h o r re-eval uate the e vid e nc e , n or su bs tit ute its inf

e re nc e s f or tho se dr awn

by the po stconviction cour

t. Id .; se e als o S

tate v . H on e y c utt , 54 S.W .3d 762, 766 (Tenn. 2001) . All questions conce rning the cr edibility of the witnesse s, the weig ht and value to be g iven their testimony , and the fa c tua l is su e s r a ise d b y

the e vid e nc e are to b e re so lve d b y the tr ial ju dg e , n ot t

he a pp e llate c ourt s. Mo mo n v . S

tate , 18 S.W .3d 152, 156 (Tenn. 1 9 99). The a ppellate c ourt’s re view of a leg al issue, or of a mixe d q ue sti on of law a nd fa c t, s uc h a s a

c la im o f i ne ff

e c tiv e a ssist ance of c ouns e l, i s de novo with no presumption of cor rec tness. Vaughn , 2 02 S.W. 3d a t 11 5; Nic ho ls , 90 S.W .3d at 586.-4-

As noted, the Appe llant contends that trial counsel provided ineffe ctive assist ance of counse l by failing to “conv i nce” or “pe rsuade ” him to testify . We are unawa re of any authority which require s or, for that matter, pe rm i t s trial counsel in a c riminal case to “convince ” or “ persua de” a client to testify

at his or her

trial. Tenne ssee recog nizes that a criminal defe ndant has a funda mental rig ht to testify

. Momon , 18 S.W .3d at 1 5 7

. T h e ri gh t may only be wa ived per sonally

by the defe ndant. Id . at 161; Ve rm ily e v . S tate , 754 S.W .2d 82, 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (“ The de cision a s t o w h e t h e r

ana c c u s e d

s h o u l d t e s t i f y a tt r i a l r e s t s w i t ht h e a c c u s e d , n o td e f e n s e c o u n s e l

. ” )

. In addre ssing this issue, the Te n n essee Supreme Court has c ited with approva l the Americ an B ar Association Standards whic h state:
Certain dec isions relating to the conduc t o f t h e case a re ultimately

for the a ccuse d and other s are ultimately for defe nse counsel. The de cisions which ar e to be made by the a c c us e d a ft e r f

ull c on su ltatio n wi th c ouns e l are : ( i) wh a t pl e a to e nte r; (i i) wh e the r t o w a ive jur

y tr ia l; ( iii ) whe the r t o te sti fy in his own beh a lf

. ( Em ph a sis added)

. AB A St and ard s f

or Cr imi na l Just ic e , T he De fe ns e Fun cti on, § 4- 5. 2( a ) ( 19 70 ); see also Jones v

. Barnes , 4 63 U. S. 74 5, 75 1, 10 3 S. Ct. 33 08 , 3 31 2 ( 19 83 ) ( ho ldi ngthat “ the a c c us e d h a s th e ult imate a u t h o r i t y t o m ak e c e rt a i n f u n d am e n t a l d e c i s i o n s r e g ar d i n g t h e c a s e , a s t o w h e t h e r t o p l e a d g u i l t y, waive a jury , testify

in his or her own be half, or take an appeal”). Contrar y to the argument prese nted, the dec ision to t estify at trial be l o n gs t o t he def endant, a nd any exertion of undue influence on the defe ndant’s ultimate de cision on this issue c onstitut es unprof essional conduc t. See AB A Standards f

or Criminal J ustice, su

pra , § 5.1.
At the c on c lus ion

of the po st- c on vic tio n h e ari ng , th e c ourt ma de the fo llo wi ngfi nd ing : [Th e Ap pe lla

nt] w a s und e r o a th i n th is c ourt ro om a nd qu e sti on e d b y

me a s to whether he wa nted to take the w itness stand, and he was told very specific ally

that it was his decision alone, not his lawy er’ s decision, not my decision, not a juror ’s decision but his decision whethe r he w anted to te stify , and I not only went over that form ora lly , but he went ove r it with his lawy er a n d h e s i gn ed it, and that’s be en ma de an e xhibi t.
F oll ow ingre vie w of the re c or d be fo re us , we c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e su pp or ts the po stconviction cour

t’s finding s. The Appellant’s argument that trial counsel should have “convinc ed” or “ pe rs ua de d” the Ap pe lla

nt t o te sti fy

is c le arl y mis pla c e d. Ac c or din g ly , we c on c lud e that th e po stconviction cour

t corre ctly

denied the A

ppellant’s petition.
CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon t h e fo re g oing, the denial of the Appellant’s post-c onviction petition by the Madison County

Circuit Court is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE