### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ugus t 4, 200 9 S es sio n BRA ND ON WALL AC E v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forLaud erdale County

No. 7346 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2008-02594-C CA-R 3-PC - Filed October 2, 2009

Th e pe tit ion e r, Br a nd on W a lla c e , a pp e a ls the de nia l of

his pe tit ionfo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f. He is prese ntly serving an ef

fec tive sentenc e of f

orty yea rs af ter bei n g fo u n d guilty of two counts of attempted first de gree murder, attempted second de gree m u rd er , attempted espe cially aggr avate d robbery, espec ial l y aggra vated bur glary, a nd felony re ckless endangerme nt. He claims that he re c e ive d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l at t ri al and that th e tria l c ou rt e rr e d inse nte nc ing him

. After revie w, we c onclude that the petitioner’s sentenc ing claim was pre viously determined and that he failed in car

rying his bur den of proving that trial counsel was ineffe ctive. The judgment f rom the post-conviction court denying relief is affirme d. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Cir cuit Court Af firme d J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A LA N E. G LE NN a ndJ. C. M C L IN , JJ., joined. James T. Powell, Union City, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Brandon W allace

. Robert E. Cooper, J r. , At t o rn ey Ge nera l and Reporter , and J. Ross Dyer, Senior Counsel, f or the appellee , State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION Th e pe tit ion e r’ s d ir e c t app e a l ma y be fo un d at State v. Brandon Wallace , No. W2003- 01967- CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 195086 (Te nn. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2005), app. denied (Tenn. May 23, 2005). It is w e ll e sta

bli sh e d th a t po st- c on vic tio n p ro c e e din gs may no t be e mpl oy e d to re lit igate i s s u es previously determined on direc t appea l. Se e , e .g ., Mi lle r v . S tat e , 5 4 S. W

. 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 7 -48 (Tenn. 2001) . This petitioner challenge d his sentence on direc t appea l. His sentence was re duced from an e ffe ctive forty-six year s to forty yea rs. Thus, it may not be re litigated in this proce eding.-2-

During the post-conviction relief hearing, the petit ioner and his trial counsel testified. The pe tit ion e r c la ime d tria l c ou ns e l di d n ot i nv e sti gate his c a se a de qu a te ly. Spe c if ic a lly , h e c la ims medical r ecor ds would prove that two pe ople wer e shot with multipl e caliber we apons, proving that he did not commit both murders. He also claimed his trial c ounsel only talked to him three to four tim e s p ri or

to t ri a l a nddidno t in te rv ie w c e rt a in w itn e sse s. Tria l c o u n s e l t e s ti f

ie d th a t h e ta lk e d to th e p e ti ti o n e r b e f o r e h is p r e li mi n ar y h e aring, pa rt ic ipate d ina

fo ur -h ou r p re lim ina

ry he ari ng , a nd met wi th him thr e e to f

ou r m or e tim e s in addition to th ei r co n v er s at ions at other motion hearings. Trial counsel state d that the State had a video of the pe titioner leaving the sce ne of the crime, w hich made the defen s e v er y d ifficult. He revie wed the indictments with the petiti oner and revie wed all the proof the S tate int ended to of fer

. With rega rd t o the m edica l proof, he said there wer e seve ral we apons involved, and the y discussed it at le ng th. Cou ns e l fe lt the le ve l of pr oo f ag a ins t the pe tit ion e r w a s st ro ng a ndsa id i t w a s d if

fi c ult to convince the petitioner that he co u ld be held lega lly responsible “re gardle ss of who did the shooting.” This was trial counse l’s explanation as to why the m edica l rec ords wer e not as important a s th e pe tit ion e r m a y h a ve tho ug ht. An a lys is Onapp e a l, the pe tit ion e r a rg ue s th a t th e tria l c ou rt

e rr e d in den yi ng his pe tit ionfo r p os tconvict ion relief on a

theory of ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. Since the petitioner a lleg ed ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel, it was the pe titioner’s burden in the post-c onviction court to prove the alleg ations by

clea r and convincing evidenc e. T.C.A. § 40-30- 110(f) . We are require d to affir m the post-conviction cour

t’s finding s unless the petitioner prove s tha t t h e evide nce pr eponder ates ag ainst those finding s. State v. Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999)

. In order to prove inef

fec tive assistance of counse l, the petitioner must prove that (1) co un s el ’s p er fo rm an ce wa s d ef i ci en t , an d

(2 ) t h e d ef

i ci en cy wa s p re j u d i ci al i n t erm s o f r en d er i n g a rea sonable proba

bility that the re sult o f the trial wa s unreliable or the proc eeding s were fundame ntally

unfair. Strickland v. W

ashington , 4 6 6 U

. S

. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S

. C t
. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 , 8 0 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). The failure to prove e ither def iciency or pre judice justifies denial of r elief; the re fo re , th e c ourt

ne e d n ot a dd

re ss t he c omp on e nts in a

ny pa rt ic ula r o rd e r o r e ve n a dd

re ss bo th i f o n e is insufficient. Go ad v . S tate , 9 3 8 S

. W

. 2 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 0 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 6 )

. In o r d e r to e sta bli sh prej u d ic e , th e p e ti ti o n e r mu s t e s ta

b li s ha “ r e a s o n a

b le p r o b a

b il it y th at, b u t f

o r c o un s e l’ s un pr of e ssi on a l e rr or s, the re su lt o f t he pr oc e e din gwo uld

have be e n d if

fe re nt. A r e a so na

ble probability

is a probability sufficie nt to unde rmine conf idence in the outcome.” Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. In order to prove a

defic iency , a petitioner must show “that counsel’s a cts or omissions were so serious as to f

all below an obje ctive standa rd of r easona

bleness under

preva iling prof

essional norms.” Goad , 9 3 8 S

. W

. 2 d at3 6 9 (c i t i n g Strickland , 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S. Ct . at 2065). In r e vie wi ngc ouns e l’ s con du c t, a “f a ir a sse ssm e nt . . . re qu ir e s th at e ve ry e ff or t be ma de to eliminate the distorting e ffe cts of hindsig ht, to reconstruc t the circ umstances of counsel’s c halleng ed-3-

conduct, a

nd to evalua t e t h e co nduct from c ounsel’s per spective at the time.” Nic ho ls v . S tate , 90 S

. W

. 3 d 5 7 6 , 5 8 7 (T en n . 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct . at 2065). Th e pe tit ion e r c la ime d th at c ouns e l fai led to i nv e sti g ate his c a se . H ow e ve r, the po stconviction cour

t acc redited the testimony of counse l when he sa id that he talked to the pe titioner be fo rehis pr e lim ina

ry he ari ng , p art ic ipated in a fo ur -h ou r p re lim ina

ry he ari ng , a ndme t w ithhim three to four more times in addition t o their conve rsations at other motion hea rings. The pe titioner also claimed that the jury was not fully instructed on the S t at e’ s b urden of proof and the fa ct that the petitioner did not have to prove his innocenc e. Howe ver, the jury instructions are not a

part of the rec ord on appe al. Wit hout the jury instructions, w e ca nnot review this iss ue. It is the duty

of t h e ac cused to provide a re cord which conve y s a fa ir, ac curate, and c omp le te a c c ount o f what tr ans pir e d w ithre g ard to t he iss ue s w hic h f

or m th e bas is of th e a

pp e a l. Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 2 4( b) ; see S t a t e v . Taylor , 992 S.W .2d 941, 944 (Tenn. 1999)

. Th is i ssu e is waived. Th e pe tit ion e r h a s f

a i le d to de mon str ate ho w t he e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d p re po nd e ra

te s a g a ins t the finding s of the post-convic tion court that counsel r ender ed ef fec tive assis t an ce. He has not prese nted any evidenc e or new theory of how the outcome w ould have be en diffe rent ha d counsel take n a dif fe re nt c ours e thr ou g h tr ia l. T hu s, the pe tit ion e r c ann ot s atis fy the pr e jud ic e pr on gand

is not entitled to relief. Conclusion Ba se d on th e fo re go ing a ndthere c or d a s a wh ole , w e a ff

irm th e jud gme nt f

ro m th e po stc on vic tio n c ou rt
.

________________________________ JOHN EVE RETT WILL IAMS, JUDGE